Hasselblad Lenses, which ones....?

[avid]

After using a Contax 645 for the past year (which I love), I am

interested in buying a 503CW. I am sure the difference in image

quality of the Zeiss glass of the two brand would not be that much,

if any, but I crave the square format of the Hasselblad. Being

clueless about the Hassy lens lineup, I wanted to find out which

lenses stand out as legendary performers from the wide to the long

ones (eg. 40mm to 350mm) and from the old to the recent. On the

Contax, I have the 35, 45, 80, 120, 140, 210 and a 1.4x Mutar. Some

too close in focal lengths and redundant. So, if I get 3 lenses for

the 503CW with a good separation of focal lengths, which ones would

be the best choice for Sharpness and Color? As we all know, not all

Zeiss glass are created equal. For example, I read somewhere it is

best to get the 100mm than the 80mm on the Hasselblad in terms of

quality. Similarly, anything else I should keep in mind while

choosing lenses? I shoot landscapes primarily and like to shoot grand

vistas with wide angles but also like compressed, tight look of long

lenses. A Macro or two sometimes also. So, any suggestion on

particular lenses would be highly appreciated.

[gary_yeowell]

Avi,

I have the same lens lineup in Contax except a 55 instead of 45, I also have a 503CW with 40(latest)- 50-60-80-100-120-180 CFE/CFI. Choosing only 3 lenses for the Blad is very dependent on your style and 'eye'. In terms of colour and sharpness they are all very good and some outstanding and if pushed to name 3 it would be 50-100-180 which are all usable wide open without reservation, but your choice should be down to personal preference in focal length. Very good three lens combo's are 50-80-150, 60-100-180, 40-60-100/120.

[victor4]

Primarily work in forested areas and small open spaces in the city trying to eliminate the 'human clutter effect'. Also do studio work.

 

All of hasselblads current 'V' offerings are very sharp with good color, except the 80cb, (not exactly current). The superachromats are absolutely stunning!

 

I have the 50FLEcfi, 80cb, 120cfi, 180cfi.

 

I don't like the 80cb. Like the 50, love the 180. Rarely use the 120 outdoors.

 

For outdoors...Will be getting a 100, consistently the 120's been a tad long, and the 80 a bit short. Would love a 250 and 350 Superachromat even though slightly on the slow side, f/5.6.

 

If it has to be just 3 lenses I would opt for the 50FLE, 100 and the 250sa. If budget won't allow a 250sa then a 180 instead. The 180 is a bit faster, f/4.

 

I will restate what Gary said above: ..."your choice should be down to personal preference in focal length"...

 

If considering a future digital back keep in mind the apparent change in focal length due to sensor size. 1.1:1 for the typical 22mp and 1.5:1 for the square sensor.

[60_cfi]

Given your subject preferences, I'd look into something close to a 50-100-150/180 kit. I seriously doubt you'll see any differences in the performance of the latest lenses, regardless of the chatter about mtf charts and such. FWIW, I use a 60 and 100, not because of their purported sharpness (all the new lenses are plenty sharp), but because their focal lengths suit my eye and shooting style. If possible, rent before you buy.

[christian_kloumann]

It is very tempting to propose my favourite lens here, despite your wish for only three lenses. Its spesifications is one of a kind. You will love it, and discover new ways to utilize its characterization. Needless to say, but still, it is expensive. The Distagon CFi 30/3,5.

 

My ultimate choise, three lenses for the 503CW-body:

CFi 30/3.5

CFi 100/3.5

CFi 180/4

 

If one more: The Cfi/CFE 40/4

 

Sunshine from Norway

Christian

[Ed_Ingold]

Since you are unclear about how you intend to use your Hasselblad, I can only suggest what I tend to use and why.

 

My basic carry-kit includes a 50/4 CF(I) FLE, 100/3.5 and 180/4, all CF. The 100 and 180 are standout lenses for sharpness in the Hasselblad stable. Stick with CF lenses or newer, for the improved shutter and service availability.

 

I prefer the 100 over the 80 because it is much sharper and the slightly longer focal length is closer to my concept of a "normal" lens (because of the large diagonal of the film, an 80 is on the wide side). Similarly, the 180 is closer to what I like for head-and-shoulder portraits, and is also a gem among gems for sharpness. I sold my 150 because it is too close to the 180, but still a very nice lens.

 

If you intend to do macro photography or copy artwork, the 120 Makkro would logically add to this list. The 120 is also a very good focal length for small group portraits. For closeups in nature, I prefer an 180 with extension rings - it has a tight field of view and long working distance. The 120 includes a little too much background, and flatness of field is not important.

 

General purpose additions to this list are the 250CF or the 250 Superachromat (!!$$), and the 40/4 CF(I) FLE. The 30 is a fisheye lens, for niche applications. The 250 is a great portrait lens for small children - not so close and intimidating (or interesting), but I don't use it enough to carry in my day bag. If I buy another lens, it will be a 40.

[simonpg]

<<I shoot landscapes primarily and like to shoot grand vistas with wide angles but also like compressed, tight look of long lenses. A Macro or two sometimes also.>>

 

Avi, only you can really make that selection and may be best made based on what you use most with your Contax.

 

But, to help out, and given my shooting is similar to yours and fair guide may be:

 

50mm FLE (wide andgle similar AOV to your 45mm on the larger frame.

 

80mm I like the natural AOV of this "normal" lens"

 

120mm Makro-Planar - enables marco shooting especially with some tubes. Also enables a nice medium compressed AOV in landscapes or very close detail shots.

 

180mm - superbly sharp and wonderful compressed landscapes (as well as tighter portraits).

 

My other lens that I love in landscapes is the 250mm giving tighter compression of landscapes. But, you indicated 3 lenses.

 

I find the 3 above are also well spaced - not too close to each other and not leaving big holes.

 

A Hassy 1.4x extender will also work nicely with the 120 and 180mm lenses although I have not added one yet and would probably only use it on my 250 for extra reach.

 

Finally a tip. There are no "bad" Hassy/Zeiss lenses just as you will have found with your Contax. However some have some special attributes - like the 180mm is super super sharp as too is the 100mm.

 

But, best to select focal lengths based on your AOV preferences rather than just "special" attributes.

[stephen_kruft]

I have used the 50, 80, 150 and 250, a 2X converter and a Superwide (38), but would rarely use the 250 or longer, as I have never been much of a long lens user. Of these I think the 150 and Superwide are great lenses but that is only my opinion with limited experience and no kind of testing. Those cover anything I would ever do except macro.

 

I shoot macro quite a bit but do it with (old)35mm because I find it easy to hold, have several macro lenses, get great results and have just always done it that way. One day maybe I will try the MF.

 

I don't know if I would change systems if I had that many great Contax lenses.

[simonpg]

Stephen, while I do little real macro shooting, I totally agree about the advantages of 135 format. In fact I suggested to a mate who is a keen macro shooter and like me shoots 135 format (with a Japanese "machnie gun kit" - AF etc) and MF; to buy an old good quality SLR and a bunch of the maker's macro lenses and tubes etc to use as a top quality macro specialist kit - for $US500 he ended up with a sensational Minolta kit with beautiful manual focus lenses and all the bits an pieces - he could not believe his luck (cheaper than one very good AF lens). All made possible by the digi bonanza!

 

I actually use my CF 120mm Makro-Planar to fill the gap between my 80mm and 180mm lenses - a perfect fit and produces beautifully sharp images with a lovely OOF characteristic.

 

It also enables me to do very close focus things rather than true macro work. But with my 3 tubes I have the benefit of closer focusing on a range of lenses as well as real macro I do very occasionally.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Anybody wanting to do serious macro work should look at Rollei 600x. And perhaps also at some older Rollei products as well. And if you want to enjoy 40mm lens, come to Rollei 600x with Schneider 40mm. The size and the close focusing capability will blow you away.

 

BTW: if you already have extensive 645 line, why go to 6x6. Try maybe a Mamiya 7 or Fuji GX680 or 4x5, i.e some different animal. You already own a very capable machine. The square vs rectangle debate is eternal.

[q.g._de_bakker]

There are two ways of approaching macro. The first is the 'image driven', the second the 'magnification driven' approach.<br><br>When your goal is to produce a detailed image of some thing, the bigger the format, the more detail (provided the subject is framed, roughly, the same way).<br>This is where medium format shines, and 135 format is dreadfully lacking.<br><br>When however the goal is to achieve a certain degree of magnification, it waould appear that it matters little what format is used (though you get 'more in the picture' using larger formats, of course). Smaller formats need smaller cameras/equipment, and are usually easier to handle.<br>When however the final magnification aimed at is not the one on film, but the one in the final image (printed, projected), the 'enlargability' of formats has to be considered again, and medium format may well be preferable to 135 format again.<br><br>Now much depends also on what exactly "a macro or two sometimes" means. If it means a close up of a flower or something like that, nothing more 'technical', tubes and the standard 80 mm Planar lens (performs extremely well close up too) will do perfectly well.<br>If it means getting a close view of the joints in an ant's legs, you will be needing a bit more than that ;-) (and then the smaller size of 135 format will mean nothing)<br><br>Using Hasselblad in photomacrography is not hard, but since often special, shutterless lenses are used, using a focal plane shutter Hasselblad will be easier.

[desmond_kidman]

Some really good posts and points are given above.

 

I would strongly argue that the information given by the MTFs really does have a good correlation with the lens performance. I had owned nearly all of the CF lenses before ever looking at an MTF. I'm always suspicious of manufacturer supplied "specs" and the correlation to real world performance. But after forming all of my opinions of the lenses and then looking at the curves I did find great agreement. You have to know how to interpret them though.

 

The guys who say the 100 and 250SA are standouts are right on. The 250 especially is amazing. The 180 is also indeed sharper than the 150. But you should be aware that if you like to hand-hold a lot the balance of the 150 is MUCH better, especially if you use a prism. I carry 30 pounds of gear regularly, and I always sneer at folks who complain about weight when the better performer is heavier, but I have to admit that the balance of the 180 when using hand held really bothered me.

 

For the standard setup I would have no question about 50FLE, 100, 250sa. Then the question becomes 150 or 180. For me it would come down to how much I used the camera hand-held.

 

If head/shoulders/chest shots were important to me I would also consider adding the 120. The above poster who commented on the OOF areas is absolutely correct: it's the best OOF I've seen in an MF lens. It is also very sharp inside of 15 feet or so. And although it falls off at greater distances, it is still very natural looking to me, compared for instance to the 250.

 

OK, I just re-read your post. If absolutely limited to 3 lenses I would pick 50FLE, 100, and 250SA. I know, it's a big jump between 100 and 250, it would not fit most folks. But the 250SA is so special it would have to be in my 3 lens arsenal.

[avid]

Thank you all so much for your response and your guidance. I think I can make a wise decision based on your opinions here and my research elsewhere. Even though I asked for advise on three primary lenses to start off, I will buy more in time and as need arises; like I did with the Contax 645. From your opinions and suggestions, I will likely get a 50, 100, 180 and a 250SA. I might add the 120 for the macro and because the praise of it's OOF rendering. The Contax' 120 Makro Planar is an awesome lens and I think I know what to expect of the Hassy's 120 Makro Zeiss. I never hand hold cameras and fast lenses are not important (although not shunned either). Two other favorite lenses on my Contax are a Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm enlarger lens modified by Zoerk, Gmbh to be used as a tilt lens and it gives me superb images rivaling the Zeiss and the other lens is an old 180mm Zeiss Jena that covers me between 140mm and 210mm and is an astonishingly good performer. I do wonder why most of you did not speak too highly of the 40mm. Seems like the preference is for the 50mm. The fisheye 30mm is a specialty lens and I am not such a big fan of that distorted look. But the 40mm is a pretty wide lens, something I could have considered. It would be great to see some examples of this lens compared to a 50mm.

 

 

Lakhinder, thanks for the advise on the Rollei. Unfortunately, I had a Rollei 6008i but something just did not work out between us. The strange way to spool the film and the upside down way the magazine door opened was all reasons that made me not like it very much aside from the loud mirror slap. Made me appreciate the Contax by a substantial factor. But I know those Schneiders are awesome lenses and a great option on a MF camera, like none else. The intention to go Hasselblad is definitely for the square format, larger film area etc. I have an Ebony 45su Large Format for larger film area (and to use Schneider, Rodenstock lenses), but I wanted that square frame and the ease of carrying the equipment to the wilderness compared to a 4x5 and for the Zeiss lenses. Images like this from a Hassy blew me away: http://www.balanev.com/jordan/9.html Such clarity and creamy bokeh.

 

Even though I am keeping the Contax also (it does not have such silly problems like jamming backs and need for a GMS), I think I will like the Hasselblad just the same and use it more. Again, Thank you all.

[desmond_kidman]

Hello,

 

Your choice of lenses sounds fantastic.

 

As for the square, you'll probably shoot more squares when you're using a square format camera. I have a masked screen for my RZ, but of course, since I have the 6 x 7 real estate, I leave the full screen in. So only when an image "jumps out" that it should be square am I shooting a square. When the camera's a square, well, I just start shooting more squares (still less than 50% are left as square for me). There is something elegant about that square.

 

As far as the 120, I thought I had read that the Contax 120 and Hassy 120 are the same.

 

"Creamy OOF"....that's the 120. The image you provide a link to does not quite look like the 120 OOF to me. Is it?

 

As for talk about "jamming backs".....I think this is so exaggerated. I used Hassy for 20 years, I had one jam. And that because I accidentally hit the shutter while twisting off a lens. If you have a 503 cw that pin in the body that can cause the jam is no longer there. The Hassy guy who unjammed my camera (couple of screws inside to remove to gain access to shutter drive, 5 minutes while I stood there) removed the pin for me, saying it served no purpose in reality. I'm no Hassy apologist, I own many other systems, and shoot more non-Hassy than Hassy, but this is a solid, quite trouble free camera, a beautiful, simple tool, one that never "beeps", goes into "auto shutter release", suffers a dead battery, or ever feels cheap in your hand.

[gary_yeowell]

Avi,

You ask why not many people recommended the 40. As you specified a 3 lens kit the 40 does not fit so easily as the 50, but rest assured the current version of the 40 (CFE IF) is much sharper than the previous 40 non IF and can be very highly recommended if this a focal length you require. I was never very happy with the 40 CF/CFE FLE compared to the 50 but since aquiring the IF version it has become my most used lens, it is even better than the Contax 35 which is no mean feet! Regarding the 120 macro, buy a late CFE/CFI version as the CF flares a bit more. Overall the 120 is as good as the Contax verion close-up with even nicer background blur, but is not in the same ballpark at long distance. Contax macro can be used at any aperture at any distance, whereas the Hasselblad requires f16 at longer distances and even then cannot match the Contax APO macro.

[Rob F.]

Short answer: After years of experimenting, I settled on the 60mm Distagon as my general walk-around lens; the 100mm Planar as my sharpest lens for isolating the most important part of a scene; my 150mm and 250mm Sonnars going in still tighter; and, of course, my SWC for the wide shots.

 

In detail: I bought a 50mm Distagon, not once but twice. I sold the first one because it wasn't sharp enough. Thinking it can't have been that bad, I bought another later on. It was that bad. I sold it. I had to stop them down to f/16 to get enough sharpness in the corners.

 

80mm: OK, but just a normal lens. I seldom use mine.

 

120mm Makro-Planar: extremely sharp at close distances. Disappointing past 25 feet.

 

The 150mm Sonnar is extremely sharp. On a tripod, wide open, I took a shot that included a traffic light, very small in the upper left hand corner. I can read the name of the traffic light manufacturer forged into the metal.

 

I held off on buying a 250 for a long time, after reading internet legends to the effect that this was not one of Zeiss's better lenses. When I found one at a price I couldn't resist, I found it to be very sharp. I shot some cars in a railroad yard from a distance, camera on tripod. I got plenty of detail. Like the 100 and the 150, you don't see what this lens can really do until you put it on a tripod.

 

Super-Wide C, with 38mm Biogon: simply outstanding.

 

That's what I can contribute. You may have to buy and try, and do a little trading, like all the rest of us, until you find what works for you.

[gary_yeowell]

Rob,

Interesting that you had 2 bad 50's, were they FLE versions? my 50CFI and before that CF FLE are/were as good as my 60 which indeed is superb. Many years ago I used both the 50c & CF and always thought they were average, as you said ok sharpness across the film only at f16 but then low contrast, my current CFI is avery different beast.

[Rob F.]

Gary, no, they were the 50CF. I have it on good authority (Dr. Fleischer at Zeiss) that the FLE is redesigned and much improved. It's in an archived thread, someplace.

[dermot_conlan4]

Three lenses is a tough one for me, which of those 645 lenses do you use

most.? You can find out if the 40 or 50 suits by renting for a weekend...on Fri

afternoons you get rental until Monday AM for one day charge. I liked the 50

CF/FLE the 100mm and my fav the 250SA, Zeiss really excels on the long

end.