Is it better to be a bit too wide or a bit too narrow?

Another beginner who doesn't want to waste his hard earned cash

question...

 

Right, the 35mm system is good as sold and I'm getting ready to buy

me some more lenses for my Hasselblad (I already have the 80mm).

After much reading and asking other MF users the plan is to get

myself a 40/50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 2x converter lens kit.

However my question is do I go 40mm or 50mm?... in other words is it

better to be too wide (40mm) or is better to be too narrow (50mm)?

To make matters worse I kept notes about what focal length I did use

the most on my 20-35mm for my 35mm. The problem is they where all

over the place.

The other consideration is the lens quality. The budget as it stands

allows me to get either get a 50mm C T* (or possibly a CF FLE) or a

40mm C non-T*. I could drop the 150mm and 2x converter and upgrade to

the 40mm C T*, but I don't want to.

 

Advice? Tips? Please...

 

Stu :)

 

PS. If they made a 35-60mm zoom for the 'blad, I'd be sorted :)

Drop the 2x. 2X40=80, you already have an 80mm. 2X80=160, you'd never know the difference between 150mm and 160mm except the 2 stops you lost. 2X150=300, how often will you need this length?

Hard to say, really. I use a 50mm on 6x6 for environmental portraits, all-around travel shooting when I carry only one lens and some landscapes, more or less as I would use a 35mm lens on 35mm. I see the 40mm lens as something more specialized, for interiors, dramatic near/far compositions, architecturals where I'd otherwise want a view camera but instead shoot wide and crop the foreground, and very broad landscapes.

If between 40mm and 50mm, always the 40mm. think this way, you will get the shot with 40mm lens and crop slightly (to compensate 50mm angle) but not the 50mm lens to compensate 40mm angle. you will find 40mm to be a better choice.

I've never tried the 40, but I'm totally satisfied with my CF50/4FLE. It is a great lens. I got my first pictures taken with this lens and my CF150/4 some weeks ago, and I love the chromes. The C(F)150 is a little soft, so you may not be satisfied with the quality used with a converter (I've never used one with Hasselblad yet).

 

I also have a CFE80/2.8, and the combo of 50, 80 and 150/180 is great. The 180 will cost more, but will be better with a 1.4x og 2x converter.

Go with the 40, and use a tripod. With sharpness and clarity like you get from these lenses, and the size of the negs, cropping slightly to the 50mm perspective will practically always provide a useable, if not almost identical, alternative to the 50.

The 50/80/150 would make an ideal outfit to meet your needs from environmental to head-and shoulder portraits. I'll probably invest in a SWC or the 903 when funds permit if I need anything wider than the 50mm. You can get good bargain for the earlier 50mm C T* lenses over the CF series but ensure the compur shutter is functioning well. There are many a times a 40mm owner would wish he had a 50mm instead and the converse situation may be said too. Remember the 40mm is a much bigger lens and the bulk and sheer weight may make trade off the wider coverage. I would believe the 40mm tends to be used in more specialised application whereas the 50mm is generally an 'all-rounder' as the 28/35 in 35mm format.

Whoa there! If you're talking 40CF/CFE then I'd agree get the 40. But a 40 C non-T*? Huge mistake. Monster lens, very mediocre performance, high tendency to flare, uneconomical to repair. The C T* isn't much better.

 

IMO if you can't swing a 40CF or CFE, then get a 50 CF-FLE.

 

BTW my outfit is 40CFE, 50CF-FLE, 80CFE, 150CF, 2x Zeiss Mutar, Variable extension tube. Excellent outfit, does it all. Using the 2x and/or vario tube *much* nicer since I upgraded to 503CW from CX thanks to the GMS.

The wider lens may make you crop sometimes but it will not make you back up into a pond (or off a cliff) like the narrow lens may.

Hmm, if you like the Planar 2.8/80, the Sonnars 150 or 180 are the next logical steps. The 4/150 is more handy and therefore useful handhold as well (Jay will not agree to the last). If your budget is limited, try to get a CF4/50 rather then any 40mm lens. Yes, SWC is nice, but the finder is bad and spoils the usability of this otherwise nice lens. It isn't really a camera.

 

The other point is the body: I would invest in a 503CW rather than in lots of old lens. However there is nothing wrong with the C2.8/80(T).

How old are you, Stuart??

 

I'm not being flip, either. I have discovered that as I age, (now mid-50s) and see and discuss with others doing so, that I prefer wider angle lenses. Conversely, I have learned that others, too, at a younger age (and experience) had a strong desire to get longer, more powerful lenses. But mysteriously, after a certain age, our viewpoint has apparently, um, broadened. Otherwise, can't explain it.

 

Anybody else notice this? Maybe it's in response to presbyopia (farsightedness of middle age....).

 

Technically speaking, I rely a lot more on my Variogon 75-150 than I ever expected, along with the 40mm, than I do my 180, 1.4x, or 350mm. These, BTW, are all for a Rollei system.

Ray Hull

OCULUS: I am not as old as 50 but I agree that wider vision has something to do with age, or maybe more accurately, photographic experience. You do want to get closer over time with your experience. a stolen shot from far away just doesn't seem to be satisfying.

And with age you have to get nearer to see what is going on. Me as a youngster ('73) doesn't need glasses to read nor a 40mm to get a shot ;-)

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

<p>

PS I have a 50mm as my widest 6x6 lens (and 28 for my 35mm SLR system). Never felt the need for a wider lens - it is very much up to your own taste & subjects of choice.

This is a very personal choice. I suggest you try to rent both of them and decide

afterwards. Ferdi (who owns a 50 mm Distagon.

Agree with Frank's advice that a 38/60/120 makes an excellent combination.

 

I used (actually still do) have a 38/50/80/150 system. The problem is the 50 (unlike others I don't mind the 80). Well, 38 is quite close to 50, so I'll use the 38 if possible. But 50 is too wide - well it may correspond to the 28 onthe horizon but the fact that it is a square means that te view actually feels much wider.

 

If I do it again, it will be 38/60/110/180 plus a Rolleiflex 2.8F.

Stuart,

 

Don't try to make your Hasselblad into a Canon system....

 

Don't do the 2x converter...these lenses are great....keep them that way. Unless you

really need long distance shots..

(Of course, I use Proxars for closeup work but that isn't as bad and I am a hypocrite!).

 

Do you care about taking portraits? If so, you NEED the 150mm. It is a magic lens.

 

I have heard many people (that know) say that the 50 Distagon is a bit of a 'dog'

unless it is closed way down. The 40 and the 60 are supposed to be better, but I

haven't tried them.

 

jmp

Roland Haid , wrote:

Yes, SWC is nice, but the finder is bad and spoils the usability of this otherwise nice lens. It isn't really a camera.

 

Not really a camera? The finder is bad? What's this all about?

 

How have I managed to make so many fine (to me at least) images with my SWC if it isn't a camera? How is it that my framing is exactly what I expect if the finder is bad? And if the finder is bad, and if it isn't a camera, exactly how is it "nice"? Could you please elaborate?

 

PJW

I started with a 50MM,80MM,150MM latter I added a 120mm and then a Superwide.The superwide is more corrected than the 40mm and is lighter and smaller.The 50mm distortes around the edges. The lens I use the most are the 150 and the superwide.

I'm 27 in 12 days time, and this is my second year of study of photography at university.

Well, a big thank you to all that have replied to date. I spent some time today with the school Mamiya RZ, a 50mm and 40mm, and some Polaroid film. The 50mm focal length seems to be the more logical choice. Also Jay's comment about getting a good 50mm rather than any 40mm also struck home. I did the same with my 35mm Canon kit. The entire kit was Canon (even the UV filters), because it was the 'best' quality. So I'd rather stick quality than quantity.

I'm having second thoughts now about the 2x converter, I stopped at tried it today on the way home with a 150mm. I doubt I'll use it. It just seems really LONG...

 

Also after talking to the photography department head today, he said it might be professional suicide to give up 35mm completely, so with a recent budget re calculation the plan now looks to be- 50mm CF T* FLE, 150mm C T* and a XPan with 45mm and 90mm lenses. And here I was exactly a year ago thinking all Hasselblad owners where complete a***holes. I guess the powers-to-be DO move in mysterious ways.

 

Stu :)

 

PS. I've already borrowed a XPan several times and love it. Don't try and talk me out of it...

Oh yes I forgot to mention, I also looked at a Schneider Variogon as well. Nice, very scary lenght wise and would also blow the budget wide open, meaning no 50mm... which is the lens I'd prefer to have.

 

Stu :)

Jay, how are the pictures taken with the CF150 and the Mutar 2x?

Have any of you tried the CF150 with the 2XE and/or 1.4Xe? How do you like the pictures, and is it necessary to stop down the lens to 8 to get good results?

Hi Staurt,

 

I found that when I want wide I want wide, and the wider the better.

The same if I want telephoto.

 

Rather go as wide as you can and as long as you can (budget providing).

 

Regards

<<Jay, how are the pictures taken with the CF150 and the Mutar 2x? >>

 

Great. I had a 2XE and a Mutar, sent the 2XE back, it's performance was way sub-par to the Mutar, no better than one of the Komura or Vivitar 2X's.

 

<<Sonnars 150 or 180 are the next logical steps. The 4/150 is more handy and therefore useful handhold as well (Jay will not agree to the last).>>

 

Yes I will. The 180 is a huge, heavy lens and for my use in landscapes I wouldn't dream of lugging it instead of the 150. I don't agree the 180 is any sharper either, at least not at the mid-to-small apertures I normally shoot landscapes.

I use a Kowa 6x6 [poor man's Hassy]. Get the 150 if you ever intend to do weddings or portraits. This is a money-making combination like few others. Even with Kowa [90% of the quality, 10% of the cost], the 150 is GREAT!

 

If you want environmental, why are you still in square format? Go rectangular, the wider [6x9, 6x12, 6x17] the better, IMHO, and even go to a swing-lens panoramic camera like Noblex, etc. instead of 'wide field' fixed lens like Art-Pan [which is however also available in 6x24 if you can imagine THAT].

 

Have fun, do good Work. Joe Sonneman Juneau , Alaska