Which lens should i buy, 100 CF 3.5 or 80 CF F2.8

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by nguyen_tran|1, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. Hi there,
    I have one shot to purchase the lens for my 500CM (i live in Viet Nam), so im considering between 100 CF 3.5 and 80 CF F2.8. I shoot landscape, portrait, still life, ect..
    I've researched and read in photo.net about those two lens, cons and pros but still wondering about them. I've noticed that the 100 CF 3.5 is a bit narrower than the 80 but is it a big deal for landscape?
    Im new to Medium format and appriciated for all answers and advices.
  2. If you can afford the 100mm, buy that one. They are both terrific lenses, but the 100mm is superb at infinity. I used to use it all the time for aerial work. Closer up, for portraits, it is just fine (actually either are). Here in the states, the 100mm is a bit more money. BTW, I am not one who subscribes to "wider is better" when shooting landscapes. I frequently shoot with long lenses.
  3. Michael
    Thanks for your point. I know its a bit more money but im doing alright. Im using a Rolleiflex with 75mm lens so i guess 80 is a bit close to 75, isnt it? Potraits is what i shoot mostly, so i prefer long lenses.
    Thanks again.
  4. Get the 100. Three separate times I have bought the camera with an 80 and have always disliked it. It is hard to focus and includes the walls when you work in tight spaces.
  5. The 100mm is roughly the same as a 62mm lens in the 35mm format. To convert between the two, take the Hasselblad lens focal length and multiply it by 0.621.
    If you are going to do portaiture in addition to landscape, I would go with that one.
  6. Whilst the 100mm Planar is famed for it's distortion free, high definition imaging qualities, the 80mm is a more versatile focal length all round. You can add an extension tube or Proxar lens for close-up work. At full the f2.8 aperture, the 80mm will also soften the background that little extra.
    I use and like both. If I had to keep one, it would be the 100, simply because I photograph paintings a lot. In this work, the slight barrel distortion of the 80mm is noticeable and unacceptable in my applications. With portraits and landscape this distortion is not a problem.
    The 100mm was designed for photogrammetry, precise imaging in aerial photography.
    For pictorial work, both lenses are great performers.
    For portraits, you can later buy a 150mm Sonnar, alternatively a Mutar 2x lens converter, which with the 80mm will give you a 160mm focal length for portraits.
    Even though the 100mm is famous for the reasons stated, I would still advise buying the 80mm as a first lens.
  7. Xin chào Nguyen,
    Kevin says: "For pictorial work, both lenses are great performers. "
    This is true 100%.
    The 80 is usually cheaper. Use the price difference on accessories like a Proxar or extension tube, or filters maybe, and you will begin your Hasselblad experience with more possibilities.
    Cheers, Jenny.
  8. If you need maximum sharpness to the edge of the field, choose the CF100. For most purposes, though, the 80 is more useful - a little smaller, a little wider and a little faster, and a whole lot cheaper. The 100 has much less distortion than the 80, but you probably wouldn't notice even for architecture.
    I shoot large groups in marginal light, so the extra edge sharpness is needed. I also use this as my "normal" film lens for travel and landscapes, along with a 50 and 180. Like others, I tend to shoot "long" for landscapes - it makes more drama in hill country. However, a 50/80/150 is by far the most popular setup, and completely workable.
    An 80 is too short for a formal portrait, since you have to work too close for an head-and-shoulders view. It's fine for environmental portraits, where you work further away or need more of the surroundings, and have the space to back up. A 150 is much more flattering to the subject, and is hardly more expensive than the 80. It is a good choice for a 2nd lens, but not as the only lens.
  9. Guys! Really appriciated for the fast and helpful replies!
    @Bruce: Thanks, but still have a question: why is it hard to focus?
    @Scott: 62 is not bad. I'll think about it. Thanks.
    @Kevin: I dont photograph paintings, i paint them. God, you explained so clearly. I might travel in the next 2 months, so wide-view is needed somehow. Thanks again, Kev
    @Jenny: You "wow" me. Its great to hear "xin chào"! U've been to Viet Nam before, i guess? And yes, extension tube is what i should consider as i am about to step into Hassy world. Cam on!
    @Edward: From what you said, seems like you prefer the 80. Its gonna be a while for my second lens so i might think of the first option for all. I havent noticed about the importance of distortion ever since but now you answered it all. :)
    @guys: This all will be in my note for Hassel experiences. You all been a big help. Cheers!
  10. Nguyen: It is hard to focus because it is short and the grip on the lens is in an awkward place. After over 40 years of Hasselblads I still dislike this. There used to be a handle on a ring which could be attached to the lens to make focusing easier, but then you were always fumbling for the handle. I prefer the side focus as on the Mamiya RB/Z and Rolleis, but when I use the Mamiya I try to focus with the lens, because of too much Hasselblad use.
  11. If, by "one shot," you mean that the lens in question will be your one and only lens - then either one will do fine, as each is close enough to "normal" to allow for your own visual adjustments (distance, vantage point, etc.) to be reasonable. The same might apply to the 60mm. This would be very similar to the discussions on the Leica forum regarding the "one camera, one lens" approach, which generally involve a choice between the 35 and 50mm focal lengths.
    But, if you intend, ultimately, to build a "system," incorporating two or more focal lengths, then your initial choice...assuming that this works for you...may affect your remaining lens choices.
    For me, I started with the 80mm, then worked back to include the 50, then forward to include the 120. For me, the 50 represents a good compromise between "wide-wide" and "normal-wide," and my own preferred progression equals a magnification factor change of about 1.5X from one focal length to the next - so the 50-80-120 worked great, with my ultimate goal of then adding the 180, and perhaps an SWC (not "proportional" but a great little camera!) not being realized in my last go-round with Hasselblad. (I did own an SWC previously, and used this alongside a Rolleiflex 3.5f - great combo!)
    But I've always been intrigued by the 100mm. My own fear is that if I once again get into Hasselblad, and start with the 100mm, then I'll be tempted to add a 60, which I'd owned on an earlier system, and which I'd found to be either too short or too long for my tastes - and furthermore I'd then almost have to add either a 40 or an SWC, plus a 150, and ultimately a 250 to round out the system. This would represent a huge investment, plus a load of weight to carry around, plus two focal lengths (the 60 and 150) which I'd owned earlier but had never really warmed up to.
    In my view, the 100mm might be more of a "specialist" focal length - just as are (in my view) the 40, the 60, and the 150.
    But for me, the 50mm represents a great choice as an "all around" wide angle...while the 80 is a great "all around" normal, and the 120, for me, is a great "all around" close up, macro (with the 32mm tube) and general portrait lens. I'd owned the 150 with my first kit (3 kits ago), and never really liked the focal length.
    But the above is all very personal, and I cannot speak for anybody else. If there is a message I'm trying to convey, perhaps its that Hasselblad lenses are all good enough to allow choices to be directed by focal length, and not just "performance."
  12. The 'ring' that Bruce is referring to, I think, is the Quick Focus Handle picture here in another discussion. I own two different versions of the earliest type. The one I most use is on the 250mm Sonnar.
    Personally, I have never found any Hasselblad equipment uncomfortable to use. But we do become accustomed to our cameras, and actions need to be second nature. So I do understand the problem with going from one configuration to another. I caught myself once years ago after driving an MG and then back to the Willys Jeep. The person behind me at the traffic lights was not too pleased when I suddenly lurched backwards when the lights turned green. Now I frequently have to swap between UK's driving system and Europe. One can not rest on instinct, but be alert 100% all the time.
  13. Nguyen, I have posted an image at another discussion about the 80mm lens.
    It shows a close-up portrait taken with 80mm + Proxar 1m at full aperture.
  14. I am always intrigued by how the 100mm gets so much more kudos than the poor old 80mm - can't wait to try one! I know it's dangerous making quality claims without proper, controlled testing, but I must say I love my 80. It performs better IMO than both the 150 and 50 and for what I shoot, it's the perfect focal length for 6x6.
    I wouldn't be swayed by 'quality' in making your decision - I'd be more interested in focal length. They are different enough. The 80 is great - although of course I haven't tried the 100 and acknowledge areas it would be superior. For landscape, portrait, still life... I don't think you would notice a difference. You could probably afford an 80 and 150 for the price of the 100!
    My vote would be the 80 for now :)
  15. I'm with David.
    A choice should be based on focal length/angle of view. Not on reputation.
    The 100 mm lens' reputation is well deserved. But still not quite what it is supposed to be.
    While the seemingly general disregard the 80 mm lens 'enjoys' is completely undeserved.
    The 80 mm is one of the very best lenses you can get.
    The 100 mm is a bit better, when (and only when) used wide open and (as in simultaneously. Not 'or') at infinity.
    Stop the lenses down a little bit, or (!) use it at anything else but infinity, and the difference is not much more than that in reputation and price.
    Not much more, because the 100 mm lens manages to hang on to its low distortion quite well (but not entirely).
    But the 80 mm lens is not a slouch either, and in practical terms, the lower distortion of the 100 mm is a plus only if you are using the lens for mapping or other photogrammetric applications.
    In short: do what David suggests, base a choice on focal length.

Share This Page