Hasselblad bad for focussing?

[wkjagt]

I have had several medium format camera's. Finally I treated myself to a

Hasselblad. My unicorn, so to speak.

But, is it just me, or does it focus very much more difficult than my RB67,

Pentax 645, Bronica 645 etc? Focussing is really stiff and close to the body. It

actually needs one of those little plastic helpers attached.

And the focussing screen doesn't show a difference between 'in focus' and 'just

out of focus'. It has a very course kind of fresnel structure.

 

Is this just me?

[cosmo_genovese]

Try the Acute-Matte focussing screen with a split prism; it has a lot more "snap" to it than the fresnel.

[Ed_Ingold]

The lens probably needs a CLA.

 

Older, "C" lenses have a small focusing ring close to the body with large scallops. C lenses tend to have stiffer focusing than newer models. There are plastic levers that slip around the C focusing ring to make it easier.

 

No focusing screen is ever "in focus". The technique is to move through the region of sharpest focus then back a little. The latest Acutte-Matte D screens show better differentiation than older screens. Acute-Matte screens have a two-layer construction and are "blazed" for bright, even viewing.

[gary_ferguson1]

Willem, there's a big difference between the earliest C lenses, the CF lenses, and the latest CFi lenses. The design of the earliest lenses wasn't great in terms of fast and easy focusing, and on the older lenses the lubricant has often dried up. To give you an example, my silver 250mm is the stiffest and most clumsy focusing lens I own, while my 350mm super achromat is the smoothest and fastest focusing lens I own.

 

The evolution of focusing screens is similarly marked. The early screens were great in their day, but that day is long gone. Conversely I rate the latest Acu-Matte D screens with the split rangefinder as the best all round screen I've ever encountered in over thirty years of photography.

[wkjagt]

I do have the older C lens. That's why it's stiff. But for some reason I was expecting some kind of Rolls Royce smoothness.

 

Anyway, I was just wondering. Ofcourse the images that will be produced with it are much more important.

[derek_stanton2]

As suggested, a CLA may be in order for the lens, at least.

 

With those other cameras, were you using a prism finder? Prisms can add to the ease of

focusing, if that's what you're used to. But, a magnifier in a WaistLevel finder is possibly

better. You might have to adjust to going back and forth between the magnifier and the

ground glass.

 

You may want to try a MAXWELL screen. Mine is better than even the Hasselblad Acute-

Matte. I have a Maxwell in my Hasselblad and Rolleiflex.

[shambrick007]

Make sure the lens is not in stopped down mode. This happend to me once and I had the same symptoms you're describing.

[paul_gardener]

Willem,

 

Even a Rolls Royce needs servicing to give that RR feeling.

Most Hasselblads are purely mechanical designs with little, flash control or no electronics.

A "C" lens is at least 25 years old.

A "C" lens with an undameged helicoid and that is properly serviced will certainly give that RR feeling

Many lenses as bodies and filmbacks are only serviced when a problem occurs.

Equipment that is used professionaly with a heavy workload needs to be serviced once a year.

Less heavily used equipment likes a CLA every 2-3 years.

Despite that most equipment is only serviced when problems occur it still performs well.

With older lenses like the "C" series the lubricants were from the days that you needed to change it when moving to extreme warm or cold areas to use the equipment.

Better lubricants were available but were not used by Zeiss/Hasselblad.

[ilkka]

I wouldn't say that there is a big difference between CF and CFi lenses, at least not if the CF lens has been serviced. Certainly there is big difference between C and CF/CFi lenses.

 

The old focusing screen is a bit dim and any stray light can make it even harder to focus. If you don't want to invest in Acute Matte screen, it may help to use the chimney finder with the old screen.

[gregory_c]

I have a couple newer lenses & a 40MM chrome "C" lens, it is by far sharper than the newer lenses. The focus ring is harder to turn. As the other guys said, check on the image screen, the Hassy Accu-matte

is a good screen, even the Beatti ? Bright Screens (ck. spelling) screens are good. A brighter screen will make all the difference. Also a prism will help, I have a Russian prism, not as clear as a Hassy one.

[wkjagt]

I do have a prism finder. But it's the first type (the BIG one) but it might be that this one is less bright than the newer smaller types. Anyway the screen problem is easily solved: just get a better one. But the lens is actually a bit irritating. I have owned quite a few very old lenses, but they were always easy to turn. The Hasselblad is the first one that is actually quite hard to turn and also the first one that came with one of this plastic handles, which makes me think the stiff focussing is normal...?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Willem,<br><br>Edward's advice is good: get the lens cleaned and relubricated.

[leica ron]

I agree,

 

My RB67 is easy to focus, it 'snaps' into focus.

 

My 501 and 500 c/m with freshly cla'd 150 is a pig to focus. In comparison, the 501 has

an acutematt-D screen with the split and the ring and the 500 has a plain older 'blad

screen. Both are much harder to focus than the trusty RB.

 

When I bought the 'blad (used) it had a Maxwell screen in it, which I replaced immediately

with the D screen.

 

I've decided to put the maxwell back in and give that a try !