Hasselblad Help, Please?

Hi everyone.

I've been trying to figure out a way to do close-up shots with my 500CM, and bought some extension tubes for my camera- although I can't seem to get them to work, AND I clearly wasn't going about mounting them and the lenses to them, correctly- as I had serious trouble with the tubes getting stuck and the lenses getting stuck to them! Someone on a Hasselblad F@c3b0k group suggested I mount the lens to the tube, then mount them together onto the camera body. Honestly, though- I'm so spooked by them, Im not certain I'll use them ever. The tubes I bought, I didn't spend a lot of money on, so no real worry in that regard.

Meanwhile another person in this group suggested I use a Proxar close-up lens filter. I was told size 57 would fit my 80mm Planar lens, so I bought one and its WAY too small in diameter! Thankfully, It was not expensive at all, so only an insignificant loss for zero gain. That said between the wrong filter and the tubes, the losses are adding up!

I guess I've not given up on this concept, but before throwing any more money at anything, I thought I'd ask here if anyone has any suggestions on how to utilize the (16 & 32) tubes, or if anyone can instead tell me the CORRECT Proxar close-up filter to search for?

I'm not trying to do proper, macro photography. I just want to be able to get closer than my lenses alone allow. Any and all suggestions or help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Tom

Because the system was around for decades, there are two or more generations/sizes of accessories, esp for the lenses. When shopping for Proxars, Softars, filters and hoods you need to know which generation of lens you have in order to pick the correct size. The major shift came in 1982, when Hasselblad/Zeiss undertook a complete redesign of their original all-metal silver or black "C" lenses with Compur shutters. These were all replaced with new "CF" lenses that have Prontor (not Compur) leaf shutters. You can identify which is which very easily: the older "C" lenses are weirdly shaped, tapering or flaring at the front, have serrated metal focus rings, and usually have the trademark "Synchro Compur" engraved on the barrel. The newer "CF" lenses have rubber focus ring grips like typical modern lenses, and the barrel will be marked "CF" and "Prontor" (tho this sometimes is rubbed off).

The older "C" lenses 80, 100, 120, 150, and 250 take the B57 size filters and hoods. The 50 and 60 take Series VII (63mm) screw in accessories (standard 67mm will work in a pinch if you don't force them).

The newer "CF" lenses 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 250 all take the larger B60 sized accessories. Later lenses in the CB, CFi, and CFe series also take B60, with a few exceptions like the updated CFi 50mm , the 40mm, and longer teles. Shutterless lenses for focal plane bodies are usually larger size than B60.

Re the tubes: yes, they are balky to use and have a tendency to jam. Its one of those vintage camera drawbacks where the mechanism is really ill-equipped to deal with something like an extension tube, but the tubes were necessary for the best quality closeups, so we Hasselblad users all pretend they work great and its a wonderful idea despite the fact that the tubes are often a royal PITA. If you can manage with a Proxar instead, they're much easier to use (don't have to remove the lens, no jams, no exposure compensation calculations). The later black-rimmed B60 T* multicoated Proxars are quite good enough for anything but commercial product shots for billboards. Back when Hasselblad lenses sold new for $3000 each, snobs scoffed at the thought of putting a "crappy" $100 Proxar in front of them. Then they secretly used them anyway: Proxars were very popular.

If you must use the tubes, ALWAYS put the tube on the camera first, then the lens onto the tube. When removing, NEVER take the tube and the lens off together: remove the lens first, then remove the tube. Observing these rules minimizes the chances of jamming. As usual, make sure both lens and camera are cocked before mounting or removing, as well as the tube (check to be sure the tube drive tab is latched). The 16mm tube is sufficient for normal closeup range with the 80mm-250mm lenses, the 32mm tube will get you perhaps a little too close (but is handy for the 250mm). Avoid stacking tubes unless you can't get the shot any other way: using more than one tube ups the odds of a jam. Tubes must be mounted and removed one at a time.

Thanks for the info!

Really appreciate it.

When changing lenses or tubes be sure you have a back on the camera with the darkslide in the magazine. You can accidentally trip the shutter release and jam the camera. I made that mistake.

What a great common-sense tip! Can't believe I never thought of that after all these years using Hasselblad: the dark slide indeed adds protection when deploying the tubes. Thanks for posting what most of us would never think of, because, ya know, forest > trees! :)

A stray thought: you mentioned that you didn't spend very much for these extension tubes. If they were really dirt cheap (much less than the going rate of about $35 apiece), it is possible they're defective, which would be the source of many problems. Verify the tubes are functioning correctly before using them with a lens again.

Each tube has a spring loaded drive screw slot in the back and drive tab in the front, which transmits the camera lens drive motion thru the tube to the lens shutter. So the tubes should always be cocked, just like the lenses: they're basically glassless shutterless lens barrels. The spring used in the tubes is not as strong as the springs in the lenses: it sometimes breaks or becomes dislodged, resulting in a free-spinning drive cog that won't cock and latch, leading to dysfunction and jamming.

You cock the tube the same way you cock a lens: insert a coin or large-blade screwdriver into the rear drive screw, and turn in the direction of the arrow against spring pressure until you can't turn any further and the slot lines up with the red dot. You should hear a soft click, and the drive screw should remain in place when you remove the coin or screwdriver. Double check by gently wiggling the connected drive tab on the front: if it won't turn, the tube is working correctly. If it turns loosely, the tube is broken and should not be used.

What a great common-sense tip! Can't believe I never thought of that after all these years using Hasselblad: the dark slide indeed adds protection when deploying the tubes. Thanks for posting what most of us would never think of, because, ya know, forest > trees! :)

Unless you hit the release button, the Hasselblad body does not need something such as a slide to prevent tripping and jamming when removing tubes and or lenses.

The thing is designed such that the body itself acts as the regulator, blocking everything until it allows it to move. The things attached to the body are sprung, and are prevented to release instantly by a latch. To allow the body to take control, that latch needs to be tripped/unlatched when a lens or tube is attached to the body (or body and tube assembly).

The thing that can go wrong is, thus, not that the body releases when it should not, but that something - a combination of tubes or lens and tube(s) - is removed from the 'anchor' with nothing but themselves to keep each other from releasing. You're lucky when a tube and lens combo removed from the body, i.e. without the body blocking anything, trips as a whole. But more ofen than not, either one will trip while being taken off the other, and quite possibly it does so in an awkward position, jamming the two together.

So you haven't heard of this before, because the body tripping inadvertently isn't what happens (unless really unlucky) and a dark slide is only a remedy for that. And because the real problem occurs when the body (whether blocked by a dark slide or not) is taken out of the equation, when we really need it to stop trouble with loose tube-lens combos.

Extension tubes themselves on a Hasselblad work without problems as long as they are still good and you follow procedure (which is fairly simple build up from the camera out, remove towards the camera, one by one).

You do need tubes for the best quality. Proxars, even though made by Zeiss, aren't that good. Because of the telescopic axle needed to connect camera body to lens-based shutter, the lens throw is limited (too long and play starts playing up). The extension needed for a given field of view is proportional to the focal length. So longer lenses need the help of tubes sooner than shorter lenses, and they need longer tubes. An 80 mm lens needs 8 mm, lenses up to and including 180 mm need 16 mm, and longer lenses could do with a 32 mm tube, just to get a bit closer.

A Hasselblad is the height of absurdist Rube Goldberg contraptions: as ridiculous as it is elegant and inspired. Almost anything it "shouldn't be able to do", it will do, given bad timing and worse luck. This is never more possible than with the extension tubes, which were an atrociously ill-considered add-on to an already tricky mechanical interface. A necessary evil at best, neither camera nor lens is particularly fond of mating with tubes in a threeway, and will throw a hissy fit at the slightest opportunity.

A stray split-second brush of your hand against the shutter button normally doesn't cause havoc when mounting or removing just the lens, but if an extension tube is involved? Hold your breath, because even exhaling on the damned thing can trigger a fractional release sufficient to gum up the works. That is why I thanked James Bryant for his "so obvious you'd never think of it" suggestion to make sure a back and dark slide are attached- it made me sheepishly realize I often don't have a back on the camera when I first add a tube. His post reminded me to at least lock the shutter button beforehand: if it adds even the tiniest smidgeon of theoretical protection. I'm happy to have it.

Those of you who've spent decades under the benevolent intervention of Victor's spirit, with rose petals strewn before your every interaction with a Hasselblad, may have never encountered such mishaps. But some of us more benighted 'blad enthusiasts have been burned enough times to be extra-wary of a few "bulletproof" functions.

Well, you show you have mastered the art of exaggeration pretty well, Orsetto. One would almost believe what you write. ;-)

But seriously, Hasselblads work fine. Without and with tubes. The real trouble with tubes is that you canot stack too many (but that isn't a problem really, because there's always one next bigger thing to use insead of a stack). Multiple couplings make, say, a fourfold combo unreliable. You mention that, but it isn't mentioned often.

The well reported problem however is one that belongs in the RTFM category. Do what you are told to do, and you will never have any trouble using tubes. And it is not as if these "absurdist Rube Goldberg contraptions" come with or need an 800+ page manual.

Those of us who spent decades using these machines did not need more of Victor's 'benevolence' than those few instructions to never encounter such mishaps.

If an extension tube is involved, the hitting the release button thing isn't different than when there's no tube. If the camera key moves while something is in the process of twisting in the bayonet mount, it doesn't matter what that something is.

There are two big downsides to owning a Hasselblad-occasional cantankerous operation, and having to listen to q.g. tell us all we're idiots and proclaim they never have problems when very real, documented problems happen.

I can deal with the former, but it's sure a whole heck of a lot nicer around here when I don't have to deal with the latter! Unfortunately, the latter is as sure as clockwork, and has been for as long as I've been around Pnet.

Ah, well. Hmmm. Since I'm new (iso). here, I don't have the "benefit" of the history amongst you who have been around for ever. Therefore, I tend to value and appreciate all of your input. Pretty sure (but maybe not) I can filter bee ess but in some cases since I don't know everything, perhaps I may take something posted as tongue in cheek a little more seriously than I should.

That said, I've read else where that using "devices" (such as ext tubes or. "close up filters") on a Hasselblad is akin to "wrapping a Ferrari in cellophane"... or words to that affect.

Perhaps I should simply save my drachmas and spring for a 120 makro-planar lens? Maybe I can trade all my tubes and filters + X $$ with some seller for a lens!

Oh and to Directly answer to @orsetto, I wouldn't say my tubes were DIRT cheap, I guess I paid around 35 (or so) USD for each, original boxes included.

Properly working, there's no real issue with using extension tubes. They have no glass in them, so by themselves can't really degrade image quality.

There's a bit of an asterisk to that-when you focus close(whether with a tube, bellows, or just with a lens that can focus closely) you are projecting a larger image circle than at infinity(or near-infinity) distances. Depending on the film, you may or may not reach the point where the film can out-resolve the lens.

With that said, at least for shorter tubes with longer lenses, the effect is minimal and not something I would be overly concerned about. You're certainly much better off than having the image be out of focus, and generally still a lot better off than if you cropped.

Don't go overboard with tubes on any camera system, but don't be afraid to use them if the scenario warrants it.

Extension tubes themselves on a Hasselblad work without problems as long as they are still good and you follow procedure (which is fairly simple build up from the camera out, remove towards the camera, one by one).

You do need tubes for the best quality. Proxars, even though made by Zeiss, aren't that good. Because of the telescopic axle needed to connect camera body to lens-based shutter, the lens throw is limited (too long and play starts playing up). The extension needed for a given field of view is proportional to the focal length. So longer lenses need the help of tubes sooner than shorter lenses, and they need longer tubes. An 80 mm lens needs 8 mm, lenses up to and including 180 mm need 16 mm, and longer lenses could do with a 32 mm tube, just to get a bit closer.

AH, so are the tubes matched to a specific lens then? I did notice that I couldn't seem to get focus with one combination I had on the camera, would it be because I had the wrong lens matched with the wrong tube?

I have 16 & a 32 tubes, and I have 50mm, 80mm, and 180mm lenses.

That said, I've read else where that using "devices" (such as ext tubes or. "close up filters") on a Hasselblad is akin to "wrapping a Ferrari in cellophane"... or words to that affect.

A more appropriate analogy might be "akin to ...towing a motor home with your Rolls Royce" :)

AH, so are the tubes matched to a specific lens then? I did notice that I couldn't seem to get focus with one combination I had on the camera, would it be because I had the wrong lens matched with the wrong tube?

 

I have 16 & a 32 tubes, and I have 50mm, 80mm, and 180mm lenses.

This is not a Hasselblad specific answer, but rather a general all-camera answer

Tubes are "dumb" devices that in and of themselves don't particularly care what lens is hanging in front of them.

To dig into a bit of theory-when a lens is focused at infinity, the optical center of the lens is at a distance from the focal plane equal to the focal length of the lens. On a simple lens, the optical center is often the geometric center of the lens elements. More complex designs shift the optical center away from here-a "telephoto" lens is not technically synonymous with a "long focal length" but actually is a lens that moves the optical center toward the front of the lens, and sometimes even beyond the front. A retrofocus lens does this in reverse-moving the optical center behind the lens. For SLRs, regardless of the format, a wide angle lens that allows reflex viewing is virtually always retrofocus, and sometimes even "normal" lenses are a mild retrofocus design.

That's chasing a bit of a rabbit, though, that's not really relevant here. As a lens focuses to closer-than-infinity distances, the optical center moves away from the focal plane. In a traditional unit focusing lens, you can see the lens elements physically moving out. The closest focusing distance a lens can achieve is a result of the focal length and how far away from the focal plane the lens can move.

If a lens can move its optical center 1.5x the focal length away from the focal plane, it is said to give .5x magnification, or as I prefer "1/2 life size." What this means is that an object that is-say-1" tall in the real world will be rendered 1/2" tall on the film. Similarly, if the optical center of a lens is shifted to 2x the nominal focal length, the lens will give "1x" or "1:1" or "lifesize reproduction", where an object in focus is rendered on the film at exactly its size in real life.

In 35mm format cameras in particular, it use to be common to have dedicated macro lenses that, by themselves, would only focus to 1/2 lifesize. Probably the most popular and common focal length for this in 35mm is 55mm, and these lenses would often ship with a 27.5mm extension tube. When fitting that tube, many people would think you "can't focus on anything" because even with the lens set to infinity, anything in focus will only be a few inches from the front of the lens.

If you are using a lot of tube with a fairly short lens, you may find that nothing will be in focus unless you're virtually touching the front element. That's just the nature of the beast.

Probably one of the most common uses of tubes on Hasselblads is pairing a thin tube with a 150mm-250mm lens. For portraits specifically, these lenses may not focus close enough by themselves to allow a tightly cropped(head shot or head and shoulders) portrait, and a thin tube lets you do just that.

If you're actually doing macro work, a set of bellows may be a better choice if they are compatible with your workflow.

I did notice that I couldn't seem to get focus with one combination I had on the camera, would it be because I had the wrong lens matched with the wrong tube?

You can use any of the tubes with any of the lenses, but each combination will yield different image size ranges and (very limited) camera-to-subject distance ranges. Often you only have a "sharpness window" of within +- a couple feet when spinning the focus ring from one extreme to the other. The combo you felt you couldn't obtain focus with probably just needs to be closer or further away from the subject than you want/need/expect. The 80mm and 180mm generally benefit from the tubes, the 50mm Distagon is a bit trickier due to its heavily retrofocus design not being ideal for very close work (although it offers unique and dramatic perspectives when used that way). Note if you have the later floating element 50mm Distagon with the secondary focus ring at the front of the barrel, you might need to try different settings on that "floating element" ring to nail proper sharp focus at certain camera-to-subject distances and some settings of the primary focus ring when using extension tubes.

I've read else where that using "devices" (such as ext tubes or. "close up filters") on a Hasselblad is akin to "wrapping a Ferrari in cellophane"... or words to that affect.

This attitude would apply primarily to the Proxars, and secondarily to using "protection filters" (i.e. UV/Haze/Skylight) when you don't have a pressing photographic need for a filter (like a yellow for BW shooting). I alluded to the snobbery against Proxars in my initial reply, the same goes with the nose-in-the-air attitude some profess toward Skylight filters. Again, it all flows back to the beyond-outrageous pricing model Hasselblad enjoyed in its heyday, when the purchase cost of the typical kit of 500cm body, 50-80-150 lenses and a couple of A12 film backs would get you very close to walking out of an Oldsmobile dealership with a brand new Cutlass Supreme coupe. Unattainable pricing coupled with a marquee brand like Zeiss leads to delusions of grandeur, where heaven forfend you commit the unpardonable sin of screwing a pane of unconsecrated glass in front of such divine optics.

Saner photographers call BS on this. Zeiss optics cost what they did then not because they were so stupendously superior, but because they were made in Germany at a time when that meant 6x the production/labor cost of optics made anywhere else. They are VERY nice lenses, just like Leitz makes very nice lenses, but 60% of the price reflected inflated German production costs, 20% reflected premium branding value and 20% the actual real cost of arguably "better" design and materials vs comparable Japanese lenses. Circa 1977, if you could slap a top-quality B&W filter on your $300 50mm f/3.5 Bronica Nikkor, you could equally slap one on your $1800 50mm f/4 Hasselblad Distagon: the same percentage of "degradation" would apply.

Any disc of generic glass you screw into the front of a good lens will have some slight negative impact on its ultimate performance. But the severity varies with the shooting situation and specific lens construction, rarely being the utter dealbreaker some fanatics get twisted over. If you need or prefer a closeup accessory that is quick to operate, doesn't alter exposure, and doesn't disturb your live model, a Proxar is a perfectly legit option. You might need to be a bit more careful and aware of lighting and lens hood to avoid point sources and spurious reflections. And the Proxar does shave a little resolution and add some distortion, so it isn't the proper choice for documenting flat subjects like illuminated medieval manuscripts. For flowers, small animals, human portraits? Perfectly fine and very handy.

Ditto Skylight protection filters: there is no "correct" answer, its a matter of personal preference and risk tolerance. Some photographers feel if they've paid the hideous price to acquire a superior lens, they don't want to lose even 1% of its performance to a protection filter: they are willing to accept the risk of accidental damage to the front element in exchange for the 100% performance guarantee. Other photographers feel the opposite: that the slight performance difference is not worth the risk of accidental front element scratches or dust etc. Some cheap and nasty generic vintage filters really were garbage and really did have a noticeable impact on the lens, but anything Hasselblad subcontracted from Zeiss (Proxars) or B&W (filters) was dramatically better than that.

Perhaps I should simply save my drachmas and spring for a 120 makro-planar lens? Maybe I can trade all my tubes and filters + X $$ with some seller for a lens!

The Makro Planar brings its own set of compromises, starting with cost. I got lucky and acquired mine with a faulty 500elm for $200: basically free. The current going rate for a clean one is $399 minimum, typical asking prices start at $499 or more. Leaving cost aside, its a bit of a mixed bag because medium format macro lenses are a different beast than 35mm format macro lenses. The smaller format macro lenses typically focus down to 1:2 on their own and 1:1 with a single extension tube. The Hasselblad Makro Planar only gets to 1:4.5 on its own, and 1:2 with the 32mm extension tube. Granted, medium format macro work tends not to be as extreme as 35mm, and you mentioned you aren't interested in true macro but more casual closeups.

Then you have the 120mm focal length to deal with, which some view as neither fish nor fowl (not quite normal, yet not quite long enough for proper portraits). Even at todays heavily depreciated used prices, the Makro Planar isn't exactly cheap, so most enthusiasts try to calculate how they can integrate it as more than just an occasional-use macro. Most commonly it replaces the 150mm as the "short tele" in a Hassy outfit, but this flows better as a two-lens kit with the 60mm Distagon taking on the dual role of normal/semi-wide. If you already have the 50mm and 80mm, or own the 100mm instead of the 80mm, and/or already have the 150mm or 180mm, the 120mm Makro ends up being the Cinderalla in the corner, pulled out only for closeup tasks. Fine if you can afford to own a specialty lens, otherwise it becomes a bit of a question mark.

Of course as a purpose-built close distance lens with low distortion, the Makro Planar will excel at shooting flat field subjects like artworks, textiles and documents vs the regular general-purpose lenses with a Proxar or extension tube. With meticulous technique, it can also yield higher resolution with 3D objects like flowers etc. But the 80mm, 150mm, 180mm and 250mm can perform surprisingly well with a tube, or quite decently with a Proxar. And if portraits comprise a significant portion of your closeup work, the 120mm Makro can be a poor choice: the focal length is too short to avoid facial distortions, working distance may be too close, and the resolution too unflattering (esp to women).

One last point of contention with the 120mm Makro is the propensity some examples have for internal flare. A small but vocal percentage of owners express severe disappointment with loss of contrast and flare issues in their work. Lkely this is down to lighting preferences and specific subjects, but Hasselblad did not cease hearing complaints about this until it released the final CFi version with improved internal anti-reflection flocking in the barrel. Unfortunately the CFi version of Makro Planar is scarcer and costs twice as much as the CF, so it may not be a viable option for those with budget constraints. The majority of CF owners seem content with it: mine is quite nice as long as I don't overwhelm it with excessive backlighting scenarios.

WOW, guys! Thanks for the detailed replies. These kinds of answers serve to remind me how much I do not know about photography. I have a LOT to learn.

OK so there's a lot to think about here.

Remember that I am not doing actual macro work, just want to be closer than any of my lenses will allow (a frustration not only with the Hasselblad but also with the Voigtlander rangefinder). I'm not doing portraiture so much as I am doing *other* stuff- although I bought the 180mm lens with portraiture in mind and hope to eventually do some of this work, if not in a studio setting. I shoot a lot of antique and vintage cars and motorcycles, and I have always enjoyed zeroing in on details of these. That said, if you follow, even remotely, my photo posts here, it's pretty easy to see what I'm mostly doing. I shoot a lot of different things- kind of photographing places and things as I move about, I guess in a general sort of "documentary" style. The vast majority of my photography happens outdoors, in whatever light there is at the time.

While I am not averse to throwing a couple/few hundred dollars at some specialty item to use periodically, it sort of feels like I just need to figure out how to get closer to my subject matter with the 3 lenses I have, to get to know how and when I can push them- and when not to. I can certainly afford another couple bucks for a proxar "close-up" filter to see where I can go with that- and if it doesn't suit, it's not as if I spent 300-500 dollars only to find it's not working for me. Meanwhile there are a few places around that rent vintage cameras and lenses, so maybe I could rent a Zeiss 120mm Makro Planar lens and give it a try before taking the more serious monetary plunge of buying one.

Thanks again. I really appreciate your knowledge & expertise- and your willingness to share it.

Not much to do on this rainy day, so I pulled out whatever Hasselblad gear was on hand to match Ricochetrider's kit and did some rough (very rough) checking of the various distances and subject coverage attainable with several of the lenses, Proxars and extension tubes under discussion here. Again, these are quick-n-dirty real-world approximations intended for context, not as a 100% accurate and scientific list. My measuring target was an old movie poster. Camera to subject distances measured from front tip of lens.

50mm Distagon CF-FLE (floating element set to closest range):

Lens alone minimum field coverage 10" x 10" from minimum distance of 10"

With Proxar 1, range limits are 9" x 9" field from minimum distance of 8" thru 32" x 32" field from a distance of 33" (lens set to infinity).

With Proxar 2, range limits are 10" x 10" field from minimum distance of 9" thru 57" x 57" field from a distance of 59" (lens set to infinity).

With Extension Tube 16, range limits are 4.5" x 4.5" field from minimum distance of 3"" thru 8" x 8" field from a distance of 6" (lens set to infinity).

80mm Planar C(F):

Lens alone minimum field coverage 17" x 17" from minimum distance of 33"

With Proxar 1, range limits are 10" x 10" field from minimum distance of 18" thru 22" x 22" field from a distance of 40" (lens set to infinity).

With Proxar 2, range limits are 13" x 13" field from minimum distance of 19" thru 37" x 37" field from a distance of 58" (lens set to infinity).

With Extension Tube 16, range limits are 7" x 7" field from minimum distance of 10" thru 10" x 10" field from a distance of 15" (lens set to infinity).

120mm Makro Planar CF:

Lens alone minimum field coverage 9" x 9" from minimum distance of 22"

With Proxar 1, range limits are 6" x 6" field from minimum distance of 14" thru 17" x 17" field from a distance of 35" (lens set to infinity).

With Proxar 2, range limits are 8" x 8" field from minimum distance of 18" thru 25" x 25" field from a distance of 60" (lens set to infinity).

With Extension Tube 16, range limits are 6" x 6" field from minimum distance of 15" thru 14" x 14" field from a distance of 33" (lens set to infinity).

150mm Sonnar CF:

Lens alone minimum field coverage 14" x 14" from minimum distance of 55"

With Proxar 1, range limits are 7" x 7" field from minimum distance of 24" thru 13" x 13" field from a distance of 42" (lens set to infinity).

With Proxar 2, range limits are 8" x 8" field from minimum distance of 26" thru 22" x 22" field from a distance of 58" (lens set to infinity).

With Extension Tube 16, range limits are 8" x 8" field from minimum distance of 36" thru 18" x 18" field from a distance of 59" (lens set to infinity).

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Again, can't emphasize enough, above numbers only intended as rough guides to evaluate different use cases for different lenses with two common Proxars and the 16mm Extension tube. Those who need scientifically precise figures should consult official Hasselblad lens data sheets and accessory instruction manuals.

The 180mm CF lens has a minimum focus distance and field size similar to the 150mm CF, when using closeup accessories field sizes and distances should be roughly comparable.

The 120mm Makro Planar offers the most flexible built-in focus/field range and highest quality. It would be unusual and unnecessary to employ Proxars with this specialty lens, those figures are shown for consistency compared to the other lenses.

Extension tubes offer the highest possible image quality, but can be impractical for fast-changing impromptu shooting situations like vintage automobile gatherings (where you might quickly alternate between full chassis and detail shots). A Proxar in its case fits in your pocket like a filter, can be instantly added or removed from the lens, and requires no additional exposure compensation. Extension tubes necessitate some juggling to attach or remove, entail significant exposure compensation, and increase risk of an annoying jam. If the situation permits a more studied, slower approach the tubes become more feasible, otherwise Proxars or the 120 Makro Planar are more fluid in use.

Depending on shooting environment, the choice between 120mm Makro Planar vs the 150mm or 180mm Sonnar with a Proxar or Extension Tube might hinge on desired working distances and perspectives. The Makro Planar is convenient for its continuous closer range without accessories, but often requires uncomfortably closer working distance to the subject than one of the standard teles with an accessory. The latter compromise may be more suitable for general purpose.

Rough, sloppy handheld newspaper comparison shots using above Hasselblad lenses on Nikon FX DSLR (so these are digital 24x36 center crops of the lens 56x56 frame coverage). All three options were capable of resolving the jaggies of newspaper printing, esp in the grid boxes, but this may not be visible in these jpg attachments. Actual subject size approx 7" x 11".

120mm Makro Planar (no accessories, @ f/4.0)

80mm Planar with Extension Tube 16 @ f/2.8

150mm Sonnar with Proxar 1@ f/4.0

AH, so are the tubes matched to a specific lens then? I did notice that I couldn't seem to get focus with one combination I had on the camera, would it be because I had the wrong lens matched with the wrong tube?

 

I have 16 & a 32 tubes, and I have 50mm, 80mm, and 180mm lenses.

Tubes of any length can be used with any lens.

The thing that matches a tube better to a specific lens than another is how much extension is built into the lens mount itself. If you want a seemless transition from lens unaided to lens with tube, the tube should preferably just as long as the extension built into the mount, but certainly not longer.

The extension built into a lens mount, especially in Zeiss lens shutter lenses, depends pretty much on what is practical, both in terms of what you need and in terms of the mechanics (too much, and the coupling between camera and lens based shutter becomes less reliable). The first is responsible for the fact that longer lenses have more extension in their mounts. While 9 mm in an 80 mm lens' mount takes us from infinity to about 52 cm square, the same amount in a 150 mm lens' mount will take you no closer than about 97 cm square. To provide a more usable close limit, we get 21 mm in the 150 mm lens' mount, about 28 mm in the mount of the 180 mm lens, and about 32 mm in the 250 mm lens' mount. The 120 Makro Planar has only 28 mm, which will barely take it into macro-territory. To get to a 1:2 scale, you will need to add about 32 mm, using a tube.

The lengths of the Hasselblad tubes are chosen so they do indeed (roughly) match Hasselblad lens mounts. The old set more than the later one (the 150 mm needs 21 mm? So you got a 21 mm tube in the old set.) The later set takes 8 mm as a base unit, allowing to build up extension from 8 mm, in 8 mm steps, up to 64 mm (which is where the bellows unit takes over), using 2 tubes at most.

A note on the 120 mm or 150 mm choice: while the 150 mm performs quite well close up (though not quite as well as the 120 mm), the 120 mm is not that good at long distances. You really need to stop it down quite a bit to get corner performance on par with that of the 150 mm lens.

I would not use Proxars. They are very simple, plain lenses. Not even achromat doublets. If you want supplemental lenses, other brands make/made better ones.

Supplemental lenses have their advantages. No light loss. Small. Easy to use. Just do not expect them to do more than get just a little bit closer. For more, extension tubes are a must.

Light loss, by the way, is something to consider when working at the lens' close focus limit. Even without using tubes.

The 150 mm, 120 mm and 180 mm lenses, for instance, already lose about 0.5 stops of light at their close focus limit. Without any tube or bellows. The 80 mm lens already about 0.3 stops. So unless you meter through the lens, keep that in mind.