Which lenses for flexbody?

[thomas_vanagt]

On luminous-landscape, it says that with many lenses you can't focus

at infinity with the flexbody.

 

So, what are the best lenses for the flexbody, in terms of focusing

and coverage?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Thomas,<br><br>You should be able to focus all (!) lenses to infinity on the FlexBody.

[francois_gauthier]

If it was less expensive, i would have one ... What is important is to consider what lenses can use the full movement. From 60mm to 150mm, you have it. If i remenber well, whit the 180 you are a little restricted. Under 60 and over 180, it is not really worth it (little or no movement).

 

I would pick the 60mm and 150mm (CF or later). Check Hasselblad site.

[tore h.]

Hmm. That's an interesting piece of information. I didn't know which lens range area was most useful. Good to know. Thanks.

 

Looking at the manual here, it says that all C and CF lenses manufactured since 1957 can be used. No limitations are mentioned. The catalogue says that all V-System lenses are fully compatible, so that means that all CFi/CFE and CB lenses are good as well as far as if they work or not.

 

But if you cannot use the tilt outside of this mentioned range, then I guess most people would choose a less cumbersome camera to shoot their ordinary un-tilted photos. Unless you are one of those rare people on this forum who actually don't own 52 different Hasselblads and need to carry them all. If you are one of those (like me) then it's reassuring to know that you CAN use it with future lens purchases as well, but it becomes less fun to use outside of the mention focus range.

[andreas_carl]

It depends a bit how you want to use the flexbody. The limitation is for shift, not so much for tilt because the design is "back-tilt" (not "front-tilt") and therefore does not move outside the lens's image circle. If you want to tilt landscapes for increased DOF you should be able to use all of the Hasselblad lenses. (A little tilt goes a far way for this!!!) - I bought a used flexbody last Summer and now wonder why I didn't do so earlier. It is a great creative device!

[jean-louis llech]

I consider that the problem is not in the Flexbody itself, or its movements, but in the coverage and image circle of Hasselblad lenses.<br>

<ul>

<li>A first choice is the Flexbody. It uses Hasselblad lenses, but lenses with unsufficient image circle. Thus, all movements allowed by the Flexbody are restricted. But you can use your Hasselblad lenses.

<li>Another choice is the Arcbody. It uses Rodenstock large format lenses with a very important image circle, and more movements are allowed. But you have to buy your lenses twice : Hasselblad for your classic camera AND Rodenstock for the Arcbody.

</ul>

That's IMO the real problem, and that's probably the reason why production of both systems was interrupted.<br>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jean-Louis,<br><br>You wrote:<br><i>A first choice is the Flexbody. It uses Hasselblad lenses, but lenses with unsufficient image circle. Thus, all movements allowed by the Flexbody are restricted.</i><br><br>Not <b>all</b> movements, only shift is restricted by the insufficient covering power of the normal Hasselblad lenses. Tilting the back will keep the film entirely within the image circle of the lens (in fact it uses progressively less of it).

[q.g._de_bakker]

P.S.<br><br>Comparing the limits of both ArcBody and Flexbody, you'll find that the Flexbody in fact offers more tilt (28 degree in either direction vs 15 degrees in either direction).

[thomas_vanagt]

Well, payment for a flexbody is on its way, so by next week, I'll be able to experiment myself!

 

This also solves the problem of taking a second body on holidays or not. One body and the flexbody!

[tore h.]

You mean bring your body and the Flexbody? Sounds like a plan. If you have any additional needs while on holiday, you can always lease some body for the evening.

[kees van schaik]

Tilt is limited due to the image circle.... That would change when using a digital back that is not full frame (say 36x36mm). That would allow for an extra 24mm of shift without 'leaving' the image circle.

 

Anyone here who could comment on how much of a difference that would give you in terms of range of use? Could a combination like that compete with the capabilities of a 4x5 cambo (resolution issues aside)?

 

Regards,

Kees

[richard_reddy]

Size of the image circle? Just a thought. Project the image of bright sunlit windows on a wall that's in shadow. Cut out a lost frame (we all get those) and pin it on the wall. Set the aperture in the working range of your lens, and you will how the image circle compares to your film size.

 

Hasselblad cameras are beautifully made, but if you have a real interest in perspective control, a view camera is better. I restored an old Kodak#1, and also have a used Sinar F (for field) camera with Fujinon glass. Images are of superb quality. From a 5x7 negative, you can also crop to 6x17cm format--and from a 4x5 negative, you can crop to 6x12cm. Considering the price of Fuji Panoramic cameras . . .

 

Really, optics designed for view cameras are better adapted to this kind of work--and you can easily pick lenses with a generous image circle, one that just fits your film format, or something in between.

 

My favorite format is 5x7, because the image on ground glass is just the right size. 4x5 will get you a better selection of film, which doesn't matter much for B&W photography. 8x10 or larger will give you breathtaking images, but I find it more difficult to compose the image and film is very expensive. It's all a matter of individual preference. Hasselblad cameras and optics are virtually unrivaled in the world of fixed-focus. But as view cameras, there are more than a few drawbacks and limitations. Photographers tend to be most successful when they choose the right tool for the job--and view cameras are still the best game in town for subjects that require perspective control. Rather than impose limitations, they greatly

extend creative options.

 

I really like the idea of using a view camera to shoot medium format, but didn't need to buy one of those hugely expensive rigs designed for

this purpose . . .

 

Instead, I have an adapter to mount my Pentax 67II on a Sinar lens board. Pentax is somewhat unique: The camera has an inner and outer mount. The outer mount is for very big telephoto lenses, where the camera hangs on the back. What you do is scare up an extension tube for the outer mount, have SK Grimes marry it to Sinar lensboard, and viola! You get a terrific medium format view camera, with metered, reflex viewing, 120/220 film, full macro capability, generous swings, tilts, shifts, rise/fall, leaf shutter + flash synchronization at 1/500 (set the camera on B). You can also use the focal plane shutter,

and set the leaf shutter to "T". With a short rail and bag bellows, this is not by any means an imposing rig. You can slide the tripod

mount backwards for better balance. It will vignette with extreme movements, but you can see a vignette bright and clear. I just replace the back with second hand roll film back, after focusing the image and metering the scene.

 

Since the 67II has a focal plane shutter, I can also use barrel lenses

to shoot medium format.

 

This long story is just to suggest choosing options that make your equipment more flexible, literally, making best use of what you already have. My C/M could probably be adapted too, but the Pentax is just as good. The film lies very flat, and the meter is excellent. The shutter is accurate. What a contraption! I really love it. And I can work much faster than large format photographer you know! The Pentax 67II body is also used to set up 4x5 shots, accurately metering

the central 6x7cm slice of the frame, usually where you find the subject.

 

So, friendly advice. Apply creativity to your camera gear!

For far less money, you can build the most remarkable rigs, that deliver extraordinary optical performance, ease of use, and technical control.

 

And what about Hasselblad? My cold dead fingers!!! I love the C/M and Zeiss lenses, but they are for specific kinds of work. For other jobs, use or invent other tools.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The problem with these adapters (Sinar offer(ed) them 'ready made' for a couple of camera brands) is that they, together with the camera body, form a rather deep 'tube', which causes serious vignetting as soon as tilts and shifts begin to be large enough to be interesting.<br>If you really want your equipment to be flexible, put a rollfilm back on your view camera. It's cheaper too! ;-)

[michael_przewrocki1]

arca swiss-system has a bigger tube than decades old sinar. thats why under certain situations there are reflexions. tested by a pro shooting slide-reproductions. i am speaking about film not digital.