Is Hasselblad 150mm FE redundant if I have 110mm FE?

Right now I have 50/2.8 FE, 110/2 FE and 250/5.6 SA. I would like to add something between 110mm and 250mm for portraits with more compressed perspective. The 110mm is great and focuses very close, love it for variety of photographic subjects. The 250mm is primarily landscape, architecture lens for me, also has a long MFD. I thought about adding 150/2.8 FE, but am not so sure that the focal length would be much different from 110mm. Additionally it has longer MFD. I like that it's fairly small and will give me bright viewfinder with f/2.8. Do any of you have both 110mm and 150mm, do you find them redundant? I also have both 2X and 2XE extenders, haven't tried them yet on the 110mm for portraits to see if that would be an option. I have it primarily for the 250mm SA and the results are very good for landscapes. Maybe I should try the 2X on 110mm and see how that works, or get a 1.4XE? My intuition is telling me that adding 1.4XE is probably the best option.

 

The only other thing I would like to solve one day is to add shutter leaf lens for faster flash sync for portraits - either in studio or outdoors. I think I'll end up going for 120mm macro for that purpose.

 

Thoughts? Thank you.

I have both the 150/2.8 and the 110/2 (in "F" versions only), and I don't find them redundant.

 

I also have the 1.4XE, but I've never used it on the 110mm, probably because I have the 150mm.

 

The 110mm has a different look to the 150mm, it's a stop faster, softer at the edges, lower contrast (at least mine is) and much more expensive.

My intuition is telling me that adding 1.4XE is probably the best option.

 

This is (or at least was) a popular combo. You should probably try the 1.4XE before moving on to other alternatives: if the 110 + 1.4XE does what you want, problem solved (and in very compact, versatile form). I seem to remember Hasselblad itself claiming this combo was roughly equivalent to the 150mm f/2.8 F lens in portrait performance. Re the 150mm f/2.8 F/FE: Hasselblad seemed to feel it was their best overall lens in the range of 120-180. Of course, even Hasselblad's marketing speak needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and YMMV.

 

The 150mm f/2.8 wasn't remotely as popular as the 150mm f/4.0: most likely because owners of focal plane shutter bodies needed a leaf shutter in their 150 more than they needed f/2.8. Even other brands of medium format focal plane shutter cameras (with no leaf shutter lenses at all) would throw pros a bone by offering an awkward leaf shutter kluge in 135 or 150 focal length: everyone seemed to need flash sync in that one lens, if no others.

 

The only other thing I would like to solve one day is to add shutter leaf lens for faster flash sync for portraits - either in studio or outdoors. I think I'll end up going for 120mm macro for that purpose.

 

Rent or borrow a 120 Makro Planar before you make that decision. Its a nifty all-round multipurpose lens, but has often been polarizing for portrait use. If you expect it to draw like your 110, but with a slower maximum aperture and a leaf shutter, you may be disappointed. Most 'blad photographers prefer the 150mm or 180mm f/4 for leaf shutter flash portraits, but the 120 Makro definitely has a following (esp for in-your-face or masculine portraits).

 

Put another way, if you actually need a lens optimized for flatter field at closeup distance to shoot product, flowers, artwork, etc and would be buying the 120 Makro in any case, then putting it into double duty as a portrait lens makes perfect sense: many do so. But buying the 120 primarily as a short portrait lens if you don't actually require the macro optimization for a significant part of your work is not typical: the 150 or 180 are generally preferable for portraits unless you specifically want the less-traditional 120 perspective.

Edited April 19, 2020 by orsetto

The 150mm f/2.8 wasn't remotely as popular as the 150mm f/4.0: most likely because owners of focal plane shutter bodies needed a leaf shutter in their 150 more than they needed f/2.8....

That and the CF 150mm f/4 is also a really good lens.

 

 

 

This is from Hasselblad's 1.4XE manual:

Note: when the Planar 110 mm lens is combined with the teleconverter it should be stopped down at least one full stop to produce satisfactory image quality

 

Also, the 1.4XE glass will collide with the rear element of the shorter focal lengths - including the 80mm. It's not an issue as long as you don't try to attach it, but since you can, it's bound to happen eventually.

The 110 mm Planar is a special lens, not because it is fast as such, but because the way it renders wide open. Stop it down, and it is just a short, short-tele lens. Using the 1.4x converter will have an impact on image quality (combined with any lens), and the advice to stop down a bit to regain some of that is sound. However, at anything but f/2, the 110 mm Planar is nothing special.

Does the combo make a good replacement for the 150 mm? I think not if you want a f/2.8 lens. Image quality of the f/2.8 150 mm is better. But if you do not need a fast 150 mm lens and can stop down to improve image quality, maybe. The converter certainly is smaller than the 150 mm lens.

 

 

I do not think that owners of a focal plane shutter Hasselblad need a leaf shutter in their 150 mm lens. What's the point of buying an (even more) expensive focal plane shutter camera when you are not using it for the fast lenses made possible by not having to accommodate a leaf shutter?

 

Victor Hasselblad himself wanted his cameras to have a focal plane shutter, because that would allow both fast lenses and fast shutterspeeds, compared to leaf shutter lenses. His photographic interest - birds - made fast-and-fast quite desirable. So the first Hasselblads did have focal plane shutters (though getting fast lenses wasn't that easy back then).

The leaf shutter turned up in Hasselblads anyway, because they did not manage to solve the shutter curtain vulnerability issue (though the best solution, later used in the 200 series cameras - rubberized cloth - was known from the start, but was dismissed because Leicas using just such a shutter had a tendency to get holes burned into their shutters when left out in the sun without a cap on the lens). Large shutter curtains, exposed not just to an image of the sun projected on them, or poking fingers, but also the mechanical stress of acceleration and decelleration in very short times, proved to be a problem. So they switched to leaf shutters while trying to figure out how to improve the metal foil shutter used in the 1000 series.

It was coincidental that at the time they switched from focal plane shutter to leaf shutter, electronic flash became the thing to have, favouring leaf shutters because they synch at all speeds. However, electronic flash being mostly a studio thing, having a focal plane shutter was not that much of a hindrance. Using, say, a Nikon F with strobes was not that much harder, if at all. Portable flash however was used in situations (reportage) in which there was far less control over the light present. FP bulbs made it possible to use that with focal plane shutters. But it wasn't until Olympus built a FP-able flash unit (that rapidly pulsed to prolong the output for as long as the focal plane shutter needed to travel across the film gate), much, much later that electronic flash too was as easy to use in combination with focal plane shutters. So Hasselblad's switch to leaf shutters was a fortunate one. A lucky coincidence.

The point however is that you get such a system of fast shutter and fast lenses, because of the benefits these bring. Not to turn them back into what you could have had for much less money (just as you don't turn a nice f/2 110 mm lens into just-another-mediocre-to-fair lens by stopping it down or putting it onto a converter, and stopping it down).

 

The leaf shutter 150 mm was more popular, because the cheaper 500 series cameras and their cheaper leaf shutter lenses were much more 'popular' than the 2000 or 200 series cameras and their lenses.

 

I think that the difference in angle of view between 110 and 150 mm lenses is significant. (I like my lenses closely spaced, so i can switch lenses and not have to switch position and perspective instead.)

 

So what it comes down to is what do you need that 150 mm for? Do you need it to be fast, good wide open, with shallow depth of field? Even though it is only 1 stop, if that matters, get the F/FE lens. Else a less expensive C/CF/CFE will do very well.

Edited April 20, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

Also, the 1.4XE glass will collide with the rear element of the shorter focal lengths - including the 80mm. It's not an issue as long as you don't try to attach it, but since you can, it's bound to happen eventually.

 

Fair point: I wonder how many users have either done this with the 80mm or had a "near miss" experience, despite the thing having a brightly printed warning on the mount "for 100mm - 500mm lenses only".

 

Still think he'd probably enjoy the 110/2 + 1.4XE = 165mm combo more than the 150mm f/2.8, even tho that is a very nice lens in its own right (ideal for portraits if you don't typically need flash). For the roughly $600 the 150mm f/2.8 "F" currently goes for, one could just about pick up a nice clean 1.4XE and a nice clean 150mm f/4 CF with leaf shutter, which would satisfy most of the stated desires for current and near future. Or, spend a bit more and get the amazing 180mm f/4 CF instead of the classic 150mm CF.

 

The 110/2 has a unique look to its imaging that is not directly comparable to the 120 Makro: the only thing the two lenses share is similar focal length. That focal length isn't particularly great for portraits, but the 110 makes up for this with its high speed and special character. Owning both the 120mm Makro CF and 150mm CF Sonnar, I much prefer the 150 for portraits and just about everything else. The 120 Makro is great for non-people close work, but I don't love it for people or landscape, and the two samples I own do suffer from the controversial flare issue that was not fully tamed until the later CFi revision. I keep meaning to replace them with a single CFi instead, but the CFi doesn't come up for sale very often at sane asking prices.

Still think he'd probably enjoy the 110/2 + 1.4XE = 165mm

154 mm. ;)

154 mm. ;)

 

Ya got me: transposed the darned figures! :oops:

The market for the focal plane shutter Hasselblads was not and is not the same as the market for more conventional similar cameras from Pentax and Mamiya. In those systems, photographers were/are buying multiple faster lenses possible with a focal plane shutter system vs leaf shutter. With a Hasselblad 2000FC etc? Not so much: their raison d'etre is the 50mm f/2.8 Distagon and 110mm f/2.0 Planar, supplemented by traditional leaf shutter 'blad lenses. The other tiny handful of faster Zeiss lenses may as well be invisible: the 150/2.8 is the forgotten stepsister, and few flipped then (or are clamoring now) for the 250/4 or 350/4, wonderful as they are.

 

What Victor Hasselblad originally wanted for his own personal use was largely irrelevant to the success of the system after it switched to leaf shutter lenses and became the studio standard of the world (because of that "coincidental" compatibility with electronic flash, and of course the Zeiss glass). Whether Victor liked it or not, most photographers considering the purchase of a Hasselblad did not have birding as their first priority (and if they did, they weren't looking at his clanking cube with its enormous slow tele lenses: certainly not at his asking prices). The second-wave focal plane bodies with fast electronic shutters and faster teles may have gotten a lot closer to Victor's ideal than his initial 1600F or 500c, but most owners still bought (or recycled) at least one leaf shutter lens for flash projects, rarely even glancing at F lenses longer than 110mm.

 

The one they chose most often was the 150mm CF, which dragged on sales of the lovely 150mm f/2.8. The fast 50mm and 110mm were/are the darlings of the F lineup, the 150 was and remains underappreciated. Unlike its more popular F sisters, the 150/2.8 is compact and handles really well, making it ideal for outdoor portraits as well as travel/general purpose use. But over time, more users prioritized speed at the wide and normal focal lengths: once they got to portrait range they wanted the leaf shutter. In recent years the 150/2.8 has been on a rollercoaster: occasional bursts of popularity, but its mostly been a slower seller on the second hand market than the 50 or 110 F lenses. That makes it a great buy if it appeals to you, esp the F version (the twice to triple priced FE version with electronic data bus is only required for the 200 series bodies with built in metering).

 

As far as the 110 + 1.4XE being of degraded performance vs the 150/2.8: this is relative, and highly dependent on what the individual photographer wants to see on the film. The 150/2.8 being (of course) better is like a tree falling in a forest where nobody can hear: doesn't matter to people who aren't interested in the MTF curves. The 110 + extender combo was popular precisely because those photographers rather liked the interplay of aberrations: it preserved the spirit of the 110, if not the full letter of it. This might be anathema to q.g., or of minimal interest to me, but then not everyone is into Hasselblad solely for the "high performance" aspect.

 

Esp nowadays when it costs a fraction of what it once did: people are a bit more open to experimentation, less hung up on "don't dare use anything like a filter or tele extender that would contaminate the purity of almighty Zeiss that you paid for at hideous expense". The expense is no longer hideous, and the optical gods are not so steady on their pedestals as they once were. Different times, different uses being made of vintage tools. Whatever serves your vision works for you, regardless of conventional wisdom or tradition.

Edited April 20, 2020 by orsetto

My point, Orsetto, is that people buy focal plane shutter Hasselblad cameras and their lenses because of what they offer. Not to put a leaf shutter lens on it. You could have that for less. All F/FE lenses are one stop faster than their leaf shuttered counter parts, except the 80 mm. And that's why people wanted to spend money on them. (They are also big, heavy and expensive, and that's not why people wanted them.)

 

The 110 mm lens stands out in the Hasselblad line up because of the way it renders wide open.

And only then. Though sharper (you appear to be interested in MTF performance), it loses that rendering quality when stopped down. Even moderately stopped down (the fiendishly intricate double diaphragm mechanism they put into that lens seems like a waste of effort and money. It's an f/2 lens. Period.)

It also loses that quality when put on a teleconverter. No happy interplay of aberrations. Just not nice.

Doing either, stopping down or putting it on a converter, or both, negates that reason for being. Read: you might as well buy and use a 150 mm lens. Better to get a 150 mm lens, even.

 

And that advice is not a matter of being or not being interested in MTF curves, or of being or not being open to experimentation. It is the result of having done just that: experential knowledge.

It really is a waste of good lens, that does not transform into a nice 150 mm when you put it on a teleconverter.

 

 

The 50 mm is good, but not special in any way except being one stop faster than the leaf shutter counterpart. It employs floating elements to keep performance high over a wider range, and the difference in optical performance compared to the early 50 mm leaf shutter lens is just about the same as between the non-FLE and FLE leaf shutter 50 mm lenses: detectable, but not quite enough not to want to use the old lens anymore.

It certainly is not a "darling". It's an annoyingly heavy lump of glass and metal. If any lens, this is the single lens in the shutterless line that you would gladly dismiss in favour of the much lighter and equally capable leaf shutter variant. After all, the larger aperture doesn't count for much in wide angle photography.

 

The shutterless 150 and 250 mm lenses are also good, and again not special, compared to their leaf shutter counterparts. Except, again, for lens speed. You can't tell the difference between images taken with either variant.

 

The F 350 mm lens is different. It is quite a bit better than the old leaf shutter Tele-Tessar. And a stop faster. Also much more expensive.

 

The main reason to invest in the focal plane shutter cameras is to be able to get these lenses, that (except for the 2 exceptions mentioned above, plus the 80 mm) only distinguish themselves by being one stop faster. What Victor Hasselblad originally wanted is indeed relevant. It is why you would want to have a camera like the one Victor originally wanted, with the lenses Victor originally wanted.

You do not invest in these more expensive cameras to use them as if they were 500-series cameras.

People who wanted one of these really did not need a leaf shutter in their 150 mm lens.

 

 

(There's one other reason for wanting to have a focal plane shutter in a camera: being able to use lenses that do not come in a shutter, such as Luminars, or mounting a camera on an optical device for which a shutter is an alien concept, such as a microscope or a telescope. But that's 'special interest' territory.)

Edited April 20, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

Thank you everyone for your responses. Looks like the primary feedback around focal length difference between 110 and 150mm is clear: several of you mention that it's significant enough to not find them redundant. As far how to best fulfill the 150mm void, FE vs CF vs 1.4XE, I have a lot to think about based on your feedback. The 150mm F/FE version is interesting to me because of the small size and bright aperture for focusing, but I'm not too stuck on sticking with F lenses just because I have focal plane camera body. Kind of like I don't mind buying manual focus lenses for my AF DSLR. I enjoy having a mix of tools for different purposes and different user experience (the journey is just as much fun to me as the final output). I'll admit though that I prefer to have lenses that are unique in some way and will stay interesting to me for years to come. The 120mm macro may not be that unique, but looked interesting to me for the following reasons: seemed like a versatile lens for many purposes, sharp, close focus, fast flash sync. I don't want to end up with too many lenses to sit in a closet so am ok with some compromises. I figured if I'm going to have one general purpose CF lens, including for tight portraits, this would be a nice choice. My second CF alternative would be 80mm CF, but it's just too short for tight portraits and pretty expensive still for a "kit lens". So at the end I would end up with something like this: 50FE, 110FE, 150FE, 250 CF SA as my primary toolkit (hobby kit :) ) and then 120mm CF for close up portraits where fast flash sync is need, plus as an option for other situations where close focus is needed or quieter shutter is needed. The 110 and 150mm lenses would be the primary tools for portraits where their rendering characteristics are preferred. Edited April 21, 2020 by pavelkupcik

The whole question turns on its ear if you have the budget to buy whatever you want without it hurting too much. ;) The fact that all your shutterless lenses are FE suggests you're using a metered 200-series body. Those aren't exactly bargain basement, and the FE lenses with electronic contacts generally sell for tremendously more than F versions. A 150/2.8 F can be had for $500, the FE is typically $900-1200. Obviously the FE is the more significant commitment, so you'd want to be more sure you'd love it vs the 110 with 1.4 extender. Since the 1.4XE costs a fraction of any lens, I'd be tempted to try it regardless just to scratch the itch of whether it opens any added avenues for the 110 (and it would be handy sometimes for the 150/2.8 if you go that route). You already own the 2XE: perhaps try that on the 110 to see if enough of its charm can pass thru an extender to merit adding the 1.4XE.

 

If you require the databus electronic contacts for metering compatibility with 200-series bodies, the only leaf shutter portrait lenses available with those are the 120mm Makro CFe and 180mm CFe. Not always easy to find, and quite a bit more expensive than the otherwise-identical CFi versions. If you're set on the Makro, I'd definitely recommend patience until you can find a CFi or CFe: worth the extra cost for the improved internal baffling against flare. My earlier CF version can be problematic in some lighting situations: not a big deal for typical controlled close work, but occasionally annoying outdoors. This was cured in the CFi/CFe, which are better suited for all-rounder work.

Edited April 21, 2020 by orsetto

Good thoughts Orsetto, thanks again.

 

I’m certainly in no rush. Right now I shoot with 2003fcw but would like to add 203 or 205 in the future whenever I find one in good shape and price. And then keep the 2003fcw as well. I love the 2003fcw for its own merits though as it’s basically the last relatively basic focal plane shutter Hasselblad without metering, TTL and nice clean uncluttered looking body. Buying FE vs F was a nice to have at the time for potential future 200 series, which will happen one day. I’m also being hopeful, with close to zero confidence :) that Hasselblad will one day build X1D adapter that can read FE databus, the current X1D adapter is just a dumb tube :( Don’t have X1D btw, but if Hasselblad can increase the sensor read speed in future versions then I may give it a look. Right now my Canon 5D with Hasselblad 110mm is fantastic, use it all the time. Many say 110 is soft wide open, but to me it’s not, amazing detail and sharpness on focal plane when wide open, and gorgeous smooth transitions. It exceeded my expectations on digital.

Edited April 21, 2020 by pavelkupcik

The Hassy lenses do play nice with smaller format digital, don't they? Much of what makes them beautiful with film transfers over to digital. The handling can be a bit clumsy, but the imaging is lovely: some of my favorite shots ever were taken with an old silver-barrel 50mm T* Distagon adapted to Nikon D700 and D610. Also really like the 250 Sonnar adapted that way (I imagine your premium SA version would be even more impressive).

 

I have a feeling Hasselblad may never implement FE databus reading in an X1D adapter: they seem to have backed away from the classic V system, and many mirrorless camera mfrs rely on their full-time interactive live view EVFs to get away with dumb adapters. I'd like to get my hands on the CF-V50cII digital back for my V bodies, but Hasselblad won't sell one without the redundant 907x gimmick camera body. That puts the price just out of my range, along with many other enthusiasts. Not sure what Hasselblad thinks they're accomplishing with that restriction: there's a lot of pent-up demand for a truly affordable modern digital back, and this is likely the last one they will ever offer. Forcing potential buyers to pay for an incompatible novelty body they'll likely never use seems... counterproductive. If we want an X mount body, the the X1D form factor is what we'd supplement out V system with, not the goofy 907x. Eh, marketing, what can you do but hope they reconsider.

The Hassy lenses do play nice with smaller format digital, don't they?

The 110mm is my favorite on digital. I also have the Zeiss 100/2 MP for Canon, and that one is great as well, but the 110mm has its own character that I enjoy. I tried the 50/2.8FE as well, it was just as impressive, but not as useful to me due to its size and overlap with much smaller dslr lenses. The 250mm SA is also great on digital, it doesn't have the color saturation, contrast and 3D pop of the 50mm and 110mm (which disappointed me slightly), but the lack of CA is amazing and has a lot of detail. It also works great with the 2X, i guess because it's so well corrected for aberrations. I even tried to stack both 2X Mutar and 2XE with the 250mm, the results were better than expected. I thought the image would just fall apart, but not that much, it was little bit softer, but still acceptable. I don't think I'll use that stacked combo a lot, but maybe I'll try some moonshots and see how that works. I'm definitely happy to know I can use it with 2X as effective 500mm. The only thing I enjoy on modern lenses more is better handling of flares when shooting into the sun.