Choosing wide angle for Hassie 500

[aurelio]

Hello friends,

 

I recently traded my Kiev60/Hartblei/Pentacon kit, including many lenses, for a

nice Hasselblad 501C with 80mm CF Planar, 120/12 magazine and focusing hood

 

The camera is used but in very good condition, the kit is original (serial

numbers of the parts match the ones on the box). Production years are 1995-1996

(from the serial numbers)

 

I am now into building my first Hassie kit, searching on ebay and/or used

equipment shops. I have already purchased on ebay-Germany a nice telephoto lens

(Sonnar 150/4 T*) at a reasonable price (250 ? = 350 $), and would like to

complete my kit with a wide angle.

 

I would go for a 40mm. I know the 50mm Distagon is easier to find and cheaper,

but the 40 is a "true" WIDE angle, so I would go for a focal around 40mm

 

Which is the best choice among the following options?

 

40 mm Distagon old model (T*)

 

40 mm Distagon new model (CFE)

 

38 mm Biogon with a SWC body

 

Can you kindly help me in choosing? Thanks in advance!

[diegobuono]

Ciao Aureli,

dalle località fotografate e dal congnome deduco che sei delle mie parti, io sono di Spello anche se vivo a Milano per lavoro (ma almeno una volta al mese non posso fare a meno di tornare).

Bella la foto del lavatoio di Bevagna, io l'ho fotografato dall'altro lato una volta.

Ma veniamo al dunque.

Oltre alla focale a mio avviso devi tenere presenti altri fattori, almeno questoè quello che ho fatto io quando mi sono trovato nella tua stessa condizione.

Innanzitutto i filtri, il 50 CF (sia in versione normale che FLE con lenti flottanti) usa filtri dello stesso diametro dell'80CF e questo non è un vantaggio da poco se li usi spesso, soprattutto il polarizzatore visto il costo.

Poi il peso e l'ingombro che nel caso del 40 è molto superiore.

Il biogon 38 risolve entrambi i problemi e da quanto dicono ha una qualità d'immagine eccellente, l'unico svantaggio come già saprai è che perdi la visione reflex e la messa a fuoco, se queste non sono condizioni essenziali per te allora potrebbe essere la soluzione ideale.

Io alla fine ho optato per il CF 50 FLE anche in considerazione del fatto che prima non ero un grande amante dei grandangolari, preferivo i tele, infatti il 250 è stato il primo obiettivo che ho acquistato dopo il normale e per ilpaesaggio lo trovo eccezionale, lo uso talmente tanto che addirittura pensavo di passare al super acromat per avere una qualità ancora maggiore, se solosi trovasse usato (no facile) e soprattutto a prezzi ragionevoli...!

ciao

[Ed_Ingold]

You should avoid building a new kit from the older "C" lenses. Hasselblad stopped making parts a few years ago and repair stocks are drying up. The focusing rings on C lenses are narrow, close to the body, "pointy" and uncomfortable to use, and stiffer than CF lenses even after a CLA.

 

Aim for an FLE version of either the 40/4 or 50/5 Distagon. FLE lenses have significant optical improvements over non-FLE versions. CFI lenses have some internal reflection control improvements over the CF models, and a flash-cable retaining clamp. I'm neutral about the benefits of the redesigned focusing rings. A CLA'd CF has a very smooth action I've never had in a "C" lens, about the same as a CFI. You can't use the electronic data feature of CFE lenses, so why pay for it?

 

My personal opinion is that a CFx 50/4 would serve you better than a 40 at this stage. I did fine for several years with this setup, and only felt compelled to buy a 40mm lens (CF, FLE) after getting a digital back. The CF version is big (93mm filter ring), but the C version is huge and heavy - like a bronze flower vase.

 

The FOV of an Hasselblad seems wider than the equivalent lens on 35mm, due to the square format. For a variety of reasons (e.g., "thinking square"), I tend to use an 80mm on the Hasselblad for scenes I might use 35mm on a smaller film camera. Furthermore, you learn to deal without the extreme range of lenses which are so easily found for small-format cameras.

 

An SWC is a niche tool. It is compact and has superb image quality (the Biogon is a true wide-angle, non-retrofocus). However, you must use an auxillary viewfinder, focus by guesswork, and carry yet another body. For me, the CF40 is enough, but your mileage may vary.

[wai_leong_lee]

40 mm will use the 93 mm filters? While the rest of the lenses use Bay 50 or 60 filters (C or CF, respectively). Do you want to carry another set of filters just for the 40 mm?

[Ed_Ingold]

Filters are not so important in the digital or hybrid digital world, except for protection and polarization. For that matter, polarizers are problematic on very wide lenses due to the nature of polarization in the real world.

 

Filters would make sense if a significant portion of your work was in B&W. The inexpensive path is to use plastic or gel filters in a compendium hood or a Lee-type holder.

 

For my part, I carry one B60 B+K polarizer. I use my Hasselblad under carefully controlled conditions, and feel little need for "protective" UV filters. Oh, and I have a set of B60 Softars, which seemed like a good idea at the time ;-)

[studor13]

Hi Ed, is it possible to side-track a bit and give us your impressions on that digital back vs the D2X?

 

Also what are your thoughts on using say the 80mm CF on a 'blad, shoot Velvia or Provia, scanning and then stitching in CS3.

 

I just can't afford the wide angle lens route.

[Ed_Ingold]

Images from the CFV back and D2x have approximately the same resolution when cropped to 8x10 proportions - 12M and 10MP respectively. In general, the CFV images look much sharper. In part this is because the larger image area places less demand on lens performance. Hasselblad images on film have a much higher resolution, but only significant when printed 16x20 or larger.

 

The most obvious difference is the enormous dynamic range and low noise of the CFV back compared to the D2x or even film. Hasselblad claims a 12 stop range. I can't confirm that, but it is as good or better than color negative film (8-10 stops) in my experience. Images have a transparent look, and textures look very natural. The downside is that the ISO range of the CFV is limited to 50, 100, 200 and 400, whereas the D2x is variable from 100 to 6400 in 1/3rd stop increments. There are also many more lens choices for the Nikon.

 

I posted links to some examples in an earlier thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NKAy

 

Stitching images is practical and effective with the CFV, D2x or film (i.e., via scanning), and I do it a lot. You must be precise in leveling the camera (and turning axis), and rotate the lens about the front node to avoid parallax, especially for still life setups (q.v., http://www.reallyrightstuff.com). Photoshop is probably not up to the job where exaggerated perspective due to rotation occurs. I recommend PTgui (~$100), which seems to handle really difficult scenes (e.g., interiors) with ease. One of the output options is a rectilinear projection, analogous to the image from a wide-angle lens. Other options include cylindrical projection (default) and Quicktime movies (virtual reality). PTgui will also stitch multi-row arrays, for which you would need a precise means to rotate the nodal point on two axes ($$).

[studor13]

Edward, thank you for all that information. I might just try the PTgui.

[paul_gardener]

Depending on where you are located and whether you have a good technician in your area I would not be afraid to buy a nice C series lens.

The shutter spring is still available, it is the same for the later CF series lenses.

Most other parts that could be neccesary after long use will be available as used parts.

The C series lenses are full metal ones.

With a good service every 2-3 years these lense last another lifetime.

Early CF lenses use many plastic parts that can fail too.

They are now 25 years old and new parts for those are drying up.

[stever_max]

I have chosen to use CF lenses. For the reasons stated above, I have avoided the C lenses.

 

I have the CF f/4 50mm, CF f/2.8 80mm, CF f/4 150mm and the CF f/5.6 250mm lenses. I chose the 50mm lens because of usability and to maintain the same filter size. The 40mm lenses is too limited, I plan to get the SWC instead to get a similar FOV without the distortion.

 

Steve

[ilkka]

I would suggest 50 as a complement to 80 and 150 as well. This is the classic Hasselblad triplet and has served people well for some 50 years now. Later you can maybe add the 38. That gives you another body which is always good to have anyway. SWC with its 38 lens is not much different in size and weight from the 40 lens alone, which is big and heavy.

[andresainderichin]

Aurelio,

 

I got the 40mm Distagon, in black, C T* version. I think it's great! It's very heavy though, and

you want to make sure you always got the lenshood on, to protect the huge front lens. Also, I

found that you better use a focusing screen with gridlines, and a levelled tripod head, to

make sure the camera is 100% horizontal and aligned, unless of course you're after special

effects. It's a very interesting and rewarding lens to use. Good luck! André

[aurelio]

Thanks everybody,

 

I ended up buying on ebay a nice SWC with 38 Biogon, including ground glass focusing screen, two magazines and a Lunasix exposure meter

 

The production year of SWC and lens is 1969, still both are in great shape, no scratches, fungus etc.

 

The SWC is light and compact - what a great camera!

 

If I want to shoot 50mm-like pictures, I can crop a square of about 43x43 mm from the 56x56 mm Biogon neg, and the job is done. I am also looking for a A16 or A16S back for that purpose. The loss of quality with respect to a 50 mm picture on the full 56x56 mm frame should not be that much. I will borrow a 50 mm and post some tests ...

 

My kit now is complete but reasonably compact: 501C with 80mm, 150mm and SWC-38mm vertically inserted side by side in a medium size bag