Hasselblad lens used with Canon Eos 20D

[ken_mccallum1]

Over the past couple of years I've accumulated a nearly complete

collection of Hasselblad lenses for my 500cm. But since it's

getting more difficult to find processing in my area, I recently

decided to go digital with a new Canon EOS 20D 8.2 MP camera.

 

I began by shooting quite a few pictures using my EOS lenses and

then following them up with using my Hasselblad lenses using an

adapter I'd purchased which enables me to mount them on the Canon

20D. I just wanted to make a quality comparison before I listed the

Hassy lenses on ebay.

 

Wow! what a difference. With the Hasselblad lens, the difference is

night & day. Much more contrast and a sharper focus... even with my

failing eyes (I'm over 45). The image in the viewfinder was also

much brighter with the Hassy lens. I tried the experiment with four

Canon lenses & 4 Hassy lenses just to make sure. The results were

remarkable. So I've concluded that the easiest and cheapest way to

obtain a 8.2 MP digital back for my Hasselblad is combining the EOS

camera with the Hasselblad lenses. The adapter cost around $85 from

Asia and the Canon 20D cost $1,499 through Ritz Camera.

 

Needless to say, I'm hanging onto the Hasselblad lenses & selling

the film backs. You might want to try this before selling any of

your high quality Hasselblad lenses.

 

Ken

[robert_reiss]

Interesting. Can you provide the vendor information? I am considering a 20D as my first digital slr. I don't have hasselblad lenses, but I have seen some C lenses for sale inexpensively. Would you take a chance on a C series lens, say from KEH? I understand (some) replacement parts are no longer available for these lenses.

 

What other adapters are available (I know about the 35mm adapters from cameraquest)? I have an RZ67 pro II.

 

How does the Hasselblad focal length/20D body work? That is, if you use an 80mm normal lens, what is the equivalent focal length on the 20D body in 35mm terms?

[chiswick_john]

So are you saying an F4 50mm Zeiss is brighter in the VF than a Canon 50mm 1.8? - can you post any 100% crops of unsharpened samples for us to see this night and day difference?

[derek_stanton2]

Hi, Ken.

 

Interesting to hear about the difference in the brigher viewfinder. I don't know how that

could be, unless you were comparing (relatively) fast (f2 or 2.8?) Hasselblad lenses with

consumer-grade EOS zooms. But, i do love the 'signature' of Zeiss lenses, especially the

80/2.8 Planar, and 110FE, so i am curious about the results.

 

Is the 20D's new viewfinder/focusing screen good enough to focus comfortably with stop-

down metering? What is the smallest aperture with which you can focus without going

through the routine of focusing separately from shooting? I'd guess f4?

 

Do you have any images to show?

 

Thanks, Ken.

[neild]

Ken, would you list the Hassy lenses and their maximum apertures, and the same for the Canon lenses you were comparing them to?? I do something similar to you, using my Olympus OM lenses on my 10D with the aid of an adapter - I get good results, but they're not magically brighter as far as I know...

[kelly_flanigan1]

The finder brightness varies with the fstop of the lens; whether a Hasselblad; Canon; Nikon; Kodak Ektar; or magnifiying glass; on a slr; tlr; or view camera

[ken_mccallum1]

To answer a couple of questions:

 

My comparisons were made using 4 Canon EOS lenses; a 70-300 zoom, 50mm standard, 35-85 zoom and the new 18-55 zoom that came with the 20D camera kit. The Hassy lenses where 250mm CF, 150mm CF, 350mm CF and 50mm CF all multicoated T*. Most likely, the reason I'm able to acheive a brighter vewfinder is due to the fact that since each of the Hassy lenses have a built-in shutter, I first focus with the aperture wide open then close it down prior to shooting using the f-stop preview lock on the lens. The Canon body is set to aperture priority, so the camera automatically sets the correct shutter speed. Of course I can override the settings if I so choose. This works great for stills; and for long telephoto shots (eg. nature) I nearly always shoot with the lens wide open.

 

I assume that if I made my comparison using the pro Canon lenses the difference wouldn't be as great. But since I already own the Hasselblad lenses, keeping them and using them in this manner makes sense. It's no longer a choice of digital SLR or medium format; in effect I now have both and can interchange them as needed. Soon I plan to make a trip to my local camera store to try out the Pro Canon lenses just for comparison.

 

I don't think the same results would be experienced using the older Hasselblad C lenses. I don't believe all models were multicoated like the CF style.

 

My goal here is not to conduct a study, it's simply to be able to use equipment I already own in the new digital age without paying a fortune for a Medium format digital back. Believe me, it's much easier to shoot with my Hassy 350mm CF attached to a Canon body than trying to do the same thing using a Hasselblad body, film back or digital back, PME 3 prism finder and setting the shutter speed manually for each shot. Now I just point, focus, shoot up to 600 images and download.

 

I'll try to post some images in the coming week.

 

Ken

[bashir_lunat]

I have three adapters which I can use on Canon AF, Contax and Nikon bodies (I dont have any contax now),and I tried Hasselblad 135 and variable extension tube on Nikon FA--yhe results were more than satisfactory. I am looking for an adapter to see if I can mount Rollei version of zeiss lenses. Does anybody know whether such an adapter been made? Thanks.

[neild]

Ken, can you also list the maximum apertures (lowest f-stops) of each lens (Canon and the Hassy lenses)? By the way, the 20D should not close the iris until the photo is taken either... so I really don't see where the difference could be coming from!! (I'm not doubting you, just confused!)

[kevin_ing]

Ken,

 

I'm curious as to whether or not you experienced any flare problems when shooting with the Hasselblad lenses stopped down to around F16 or F22.

 

I recently did some tests with Pentacon 6 mount lenses from Arsenal, Zeiss Jena, and Schneider-Kreuznach on a Canon Kiss Digital (300D), and many of the lenses lost a LOT of contrast when stopped down. Focal length of the lens didn't seem to matter, and I didn't notice anything odd when looking through the viewfinder (but of course the viewfinder got really dark when I stopped the lenses down).

 

On another board people were speculating that the larger image circle projected by these lenses was causing unwanted reflections within the adapter and adversely affecting the image.

 

I ended up flocking the inside of the adapter with black velvet and fashioned and flocked a mask with a rectangular cutout that fits inside of the adapter. This helped a lot, but there is still a noticable loss of contrast when stopping down certain lenses -- something I'd never experienced when shooting with these lenses on film.

 

I was thinking about also getting a Hasselblad to EOS adapter, but I wonder if I'd have the same problem. Could you let me know if you've experienced this loss of contrast as well?

[ken_mccallum1]

Canon 35-85 1:4-5.6, Canon 75-300 1:4-5.6, Canon 18-55 1:3.5-5.6, Hasselblad 50mm CF 4, Hasselblad 150mm CF 4, Hasselblad 250mm CF 5.6, Hasselblad 350mm CF 5.6

[max_fun]

Ken, you mentioned that you have the do you claim that the Canon 50mm standard, which

I assume is the f/1.8. Can you say that the Hassy 50mm looks brighter than this Canon

50mm? Even with the stopped down metering method, it won't make sense that an f/4

lens would look brighter than an f/1.8.

 

All the canon lenses you've got, except the 50mm , is fairly slow, but for the price of one

of your Hassy lenses, you can probably get a good Canon prime or zoom lens with a

maximum aperture of f/2.8 or wider. That will really make the viewfinder much brighter.

 

But it's an interesting thought that at the same aperture, a MF lens would look brighter

than a 35mm film one. Can anyone confirm or explain this?

 

Cheers!

[derek_stanton2]

And, another question, Ken -

 

What are the benefits of using these Hassy lenses, versus the Canon? Even if the Hassy

lens were brighter than the EOS, with the EOS you have AF, and fully coupled metering.

 

As well, all information i've read indicates that 35mm lenses are sharper than medium

format lenses, and the MF only wins-out on image quality because the enlargement factor

(film>print) is less. But, using the same digital sensor for both lens systems, that seems to

be lost, and the higher resolving 35mm lenses should be better, no? Even if you're using

even a smaller portion (center) of the MF lens.... I don't see how using the Hassy lenses on

a DSLR is a 'substitution' for a digital medium format camera. I would think you'd just be

getting the same results as the DSLR would give. Especially since both lens systems share

the same focal lengths. Could you help me to understand this?

[max_fun]

Derek,

 

I've had a rather long discussion about MF lenses in the Leica forum where I had been

fairly badly berated for my ignorance.

 

Anyway, what I got from the discussion is that MF lenses have the benefit of having a

larger diaphragm, which means that they have less problem with diffraction than smaller

lenses. But because they have to have a larger image circle, it becomes harder for lens

manufacturers to find a balance between optimizing size and price vs image performance

in these larger lenses. Which usually results in MF lenses being less sharp than 35mm

lenses. Which would also explain why mini-digicam lenses can resolve so much more

detail on such a minute sensor size, despite being even more diffraction limited.

 

Back to Hassy lenses. It could be that Zeiss is so good in its craft that even with the larger

lenses, it can design MF lenses that actually match Canon 35mm lenses. I've never tried it,

so I'm going to have to take other people's words for it.

[derek_stanton2]

Max -

"Berated?" In the Leica Forum? Surely you jest....

[chuck_jones1]

Now I'm confused. When I posted a question in another forum about using the adapter to put a Pentax 6x7 lens on the Pentax 35mm SLR I was told repeatedly I would not get better quality pictures because it's the film that gives quality difference and that MF lenses are not same quality as SLR lenses.

 

Will a Pentax SLR/Pentax 6x7 combo give equally good pictures as a Canon/Hassie combo?

C. Jones.

[derek_stanton2]

Chuck -

 

Just about every resolution test i've seen shows that 35mm lenses resolve higher than

medium format lenses. I don't know how the 6x7 lenses on a 35mm body would be any

better than the dedicated 35mm lenses. I think, sometimes, the adapters are just a way to

share lenses across two systems.

[kevin_ing]

In theory, a 35mm is *possibly* better than a medium format lens for a variety of reasons. This probably does not hold true in all situations. I think it really depends on what you're comparing.

 

I recently compared a 180mm Zeiss Jena Sonnar, two 150mm Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenars, 150mm Hartblei, 150mm Kaleinar, and a Canon 75-300 IS lens. Granted, this is a mid-priced 35mm zoom lens going up against some pretty nice medium format lenses. However, the Canon lens was comfortably in the middle of its zoom range, where such lenses traditionally deliver maximum sharpness: http://kievaholic.com/LensTestsMidTele/index.html

 

Is the Canon lens sharper? Wide open, the MF lenses are sharper. Stopped down a bit and the Canon is roughly on par with the others, but I'd still give the edge to the MF lenses. Now a Canon 200mm F2.8 L lens may perform better... but unfortunately, I don't have one to test.

 

By the way, I admit that I misfocused the Tele-Xenar #2 in the first infinity test and then misfocused the 150mm Kaleinar in the second test. They sure looked sharp in the viewfinder though.