Hasselblad Choices

[michael_franc]

I am going to put my tax refung toward a Hasselblad (currently using Rolleiflex TLR and 4 x 5) As I understand it if I don't care about TTL flesh metering I should just save my money and get the 501 or even 500CM, right? Also, what about those other mysterious cameras 2000/200. Is anyone using them? Are they less reliable than the 500 series? I want a manual camera and rather spend the money on glass.

 

On the other hand, would I be too far behind times if I got a 500C

body? How annoying does the mirror/long lens problem get? In other

words, did any of you quickly dump the 500C omce the 500C/M came? or

the 501 or 503? I guess the question is if the 500C costs half of the

price of 503, should I get the 500?

Thank you

[ted_roberts]

All the Hasselblad cameras in the 500 series are identical in the interchangeability of components and in the use and operation of lenses and magazines. All are SLR models with the mirror retuing into the viewing position when the film is advanced etc, etc,.The 500C and 500EL are identical with the exception that they do not have the interchangeable goundglass screens. The 501CM is the 501C but has the new Gliding Mirror System that shows the entire image on the focusing screen with all the lenses..the vignetting is only in the finder, not on the film.I don't think you are taking a step back by purchasing the 500C..I started with the 500CW bought a 501CM, gave the 500cw to a freind (really regretted that) and just got a beautiful 500C. I use them all and they all produce great images. Good luck!

[michael_franc]

Thank you--I was hoping to hear that. I'd much rather spend my money on lenses. Which brings me to: In 35mm I like to work with a 135mm lens, for portrait but many other applications. In 6x6 this would be 250mm. However, it seems that many people prefer the 180mm. But I guess the ratio remains the same so it is the 250 I'll be saving for--not a cheap lens.

[susej_natas]

2000FC/M is the best, most verstile Hassy for the money. And you can use C, CF, FE or F lenses. Probably the closest thing to a "bargain" in the Hasselblad galaxy. Absolutely the only drawback I have been able to find in mine is its battery-dependency.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Susej,

 

Try and find a 2000 or 2003 FCW. There are some out there.

These models do not depend on batteries when used with leaf shuttered lenses.

 

You listed the types of lenses that can be used on 2000 series models, but there are so many different types at present that your list is somewhat incomplete. It would be best to simply say you can use "all" lenses. ;-)

[tatu_laitinen7]

Hello Michael!

 

If you like the perspective of a 35mm format 135mm lens, you should try the Sonnar 250/5.6. Even the older C-series, plain multicoated version will do fine if you use it with a proper bellows lens shade. Its not very flare resistant but with a pro-shade and 250 mask, the chromes will look stunning! Like really colorfull and tack sharp. It´s designed to be used wide open and performs the best around f5.6-f8, after that the resolution drops fairly fast. It´s very sharp at closer focusing distances(2.5m) and with a extension tube it gives a lot of working space between you and the subject. The stability of your tripod and a vibration free firing of your camera is very important with this lens!

[susej_natas]

<i>...there are so many different types at present that your list is somewhat incomplete. It would be best to simply say [2000FC/M] can use "all" lenses.</i><p>Absolutely right.<p>I bought the 2000FC/M as much for economy as for its ability to use F lenses--it's by far the cheapest Hassy focal-plane body. But the battery-dependency is a pain: the battery died on me right in the middle of a <i>shot</i> once, leaving the shutter <i>open</i>! So I suggest changing the battery every once in a while, just to prevent such a thing happening. Other than that, I adore the camera.

[Rob F.]

The 250mm Sonnar does not have quite the reputation for image quality of most other Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. The 180 is thought by many to be among their sharpest, though, regrettably it may be too short to satisfy you.

 

It's possible that the 250 Sonnar will fill the bill for your portrait needs, as its less-than-ultimate defintion can be flattering for many portraits. But you said there would be "many other applications," and that raises the question of whether you'll be happy with this lens for some of those applications. There is now an alternative in the form of the Sonnar Superachromat 250mm. It will, of course, cost more; but depending on just how big a refund you are expecting, maybe it would be within reach.

 

By my reckoning, a 250 is equivalent, in its horizontal angle of view, to a 167mm in 135 format. A bit longer than you had in mind. When you shoot portraits, you might be thinking of the 35mm camera held in vertical position. The same figure would apply that way, as well. The 180 would be equivalent to a 120mm lens in 35mm format, using the same criteria. You know, that's not too far from a 135, anyhow. The point being that the 180 might suit your purpose.

[michael_franc]

Thanks for all the answers again. I wonder about the quality of the 250. I read very contrasting reviews. I think I need to go to a store, put all those lenses on a body and see what "feels" right lenghtwise.

Thanks again

Michael

[gary voth]

The SA 250 is among the sharpest lenses I have ever used. However, I rarely use it for people, tending to prefer the 150 for portraiture.

 

There are some drawbacks to the 250mm focal length for portraits that you should be aware of:

 

Both the "regular" 250 and SA 250 will require some form of close focusing aid (either Proxar or tube) for tighter portraits. If I remember correctly, the 250 Sonnar focuses to approx. 8', while the SA 250 gets down to 10'. The 180 will give greater magnification without extension.

 

Also, the 250 is slower at f/5.6 and somewhat harder to focus in low light.

 

I would strongly recommend renting or borrowing both a 180 and 250 if possible and shooting some tests. You might be surprised. I have found that I tend to like shorter equivalent focal lengths in 6x6 than I do in 35mm...

[michael_franc]

That is a very interesting input. With my 35mm 135 i can get very close. Yes, that is very important. I just bought an old 500CM today with A12 and with the 100mm lens. I've read only the best about the 100 and how it is supposed to be much better than the 80. So i figured over the time I'll get the 50 and the 250 and have a wide range covered. This makes it more difficult. You know that would be an interesting question for the forum--what set of lenses to people have and/or use.

Thank you so much.

[gary voth]

Hi Michael. I also own the 100 Planar. It's my favorite lens for the Hasselblad. You made a very good choice.

 

I tend to do more commercial and editorial photography than nature and landscape work. For me, the ideal set of lenses turned out to be the 60/100/150. I might prefer a 50 on the wide end for landscape or architecture, but the 60 is better for people, IMHO. It is of course a matter of personal taste, so buy what you like.

 

One more thought on the 180 vs the 250: The 180 works well with the Hassy 1.4x converter, giving you that bit of extra reach when you really need it. (But I wouldn't necessarily buy this combination if I felt I was going to use the teleconverter 80% of the time...)

[greg_clements]

On the 180mm lens. Very, very sharp. Beautiful depth of field. In my opinion a 250 lens is too long a focal length for portraiture; a tight head shot at close focussing is possible with the 180mm. Why the neccessity to go for a longer focal length. Absolutley no advantage whatsoever. I strongly recommend the razor sharp 180mm.

 

Greg Clements