The best in Blad landscape

[bryceworld]

Hi,

 

I'm looking into venturing into the MF game, after a couple of years with an

xpan and noblex, and working for a well known pano photographer, i'm starting

to get a little over the pano format and am seeking change..

I love my landscapes and am thinking square, my question is (and sorry if its

completely obvious) which wide angle lense is considered the best?

The swc has the 38(i think, or 35) but its fixed is it not? A bit limiting...

the 40mm i think i read somewhere has some bad characteristics with flare? or

shooting into the sun? can anyone elaborate? and the 50mm seams like it's not

going to be 'wide' enough..

I'd prefer answers from people that have owned these one/some of these lenses

and their experience when blowing up to large sizes, i.e 50inch's +

Thanks for your time and advice..

 

Bryce

[leicaglow]

Yes, the 38mm is fixed on the SWC. It is incredibly sharp. Some think the 40mm is as sharp and well corrected (though I don't believe I would support that notion based on my limited experience with the 40mm and extensive experience with an SWC). The 50mm is legendary as well. I find it plenty wide enough for my use these days. When I did architectural work with MF, the 38mm was essential. It's also a lot smaller than he 40mm and a wonderful, minimalist camera to work with. I've done mural sized prints from the 38mm and 50mm and they look great. If you can go a little longer, the 60mm is one of my favorite lenses.

[marek_fogiel]

Bryce,

To me SWC feels like a 21mm in terms of 24x36mm fov, the 50 feels like 28mm and the 60 feels like a 35mm, although the actual conversion of the diagonal is a bit different.

I only have the experience with the old 40mm, and it is definitely not as sharp and a bit of a PITA for the size and risk of flare, but the SWC is not flare free either. From other uses' comments, the latest 40mm IF is very sharp indeed, but at cost of higher distortion.

However, the SWC is probably one of the best wa tools ever made, and if you like slow and precise work, you can get the ground glass with the RMfx adapter and use it like a small LF camera. The big advantages of the SWC are:

- small and light

- sharp as hell at any distance and out into the corners

- next to no distortion - great for architecture

- incredibly 3d in rendering

- shootable handheld down to 1/8th of a sec

 

At today's prices, it may be reasonable to get the SWC, 50 and 60 mm, if you want to save something I'd get the SWC and the 60mm, and if you want 1 lens I'd get the 50 mm (FLE). From my experience they are all sharp enough to make a first rate landscape blowup.

[john_gleason1]

"To me SWC feels like a 21mm in terms of 24x36mm fov, the 50 feels like 28mm and the 60 feels like a 35mm, although the actual conversion of the diagonal is a bit different"

 

Here's a recent thread on the field-of-view of Hasselblad lens choices, with a chart comparing fov to 35mm lenses of popular focal lengths.

[john_gleason1]

Whoops; forgot to include the link to the thred. Here is:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O5wv

[stuart_richardson]

If you are used to the panoramic format, the transition to square can be difficult. You will

be struggling with too much sky and/or too much foreground. It will take awhile to get

used too...not that you shouldn't try it, but it's something to keep in mind. If you want a

rather broad view of the landscape in front of you, the 38mm biogon is best...it has about

a 90 degree field of view...it will have a closer horizontal angle of view to the 45mm on

the xpan. Fixed lens is not really a limitation if you only need that lens! Getting a basic

500c/m kit is really cheap these days and all you will need will be the body, finder and a

lens...the SWC and 500 share the same film backs. 80mm planars are very cheap these

days too...especially for CT* versions. <P>In terms of enlargement, the 38mm will

probably give you the sharpest results edge to edge...that and the newer 40mm FLE. I

can't speak to the 50mm f/4 distagon because I use the 50mm f/2.8 Distagon FE for the

200 series (a superb lens). But anyway, if you like wide, I think the 38mm is your best bet.

[d_purdy]

It is hard to argue with the work of Michael Kenna. Beautiful use of the square and

shooting with a hasselblad wide angle a lot of the time. l read what lens he likes to use but

I have forgotten. He probably has them all though he says his camera is old and battered.

I recently saw quite a lot of his prints on display and they are very impressively sharp.

Especially at infinite.. sharp details of stuff on the distant horizons.

[Ed_Ingold]

No one can dispute the quality of the Zeiss Biogon lens, yet it is what it is. Not all landscapes lend themselves to wide angle lenses, in fact 80-120mm is far more common. In that case, the 40mm is a useful component of a more versatile kit. The sharpness is as good as the 38mm Biogon. The distortion is somewhat greater, but hardly noticeable even in architectural shots.

 

A compendium (Pro) shade is much more effective than fixed (or no) sun shades in controlling flare. I've not had any major problem with flare with the 40mm, but the large number of elements suggests a potential issue.

[paul_gardener]

There are three different 40 mm lenses for Hasselblad V series bodies.

 

40 mm C 1967 - 1981, 40 mm CF 1982 - 2004 and 40 mm CFE IF 2004 - present

 

The early C lens is more prone to flare than later CF(E) and CFE IF

lenses.

The C lens has a much larger front element so flare is more an issue.

 

The later CF(E)is an improved design with floating elements.

This lens was changed at some minor poits in 1998 when it became a CFE model with databus contacts.

Databus is used with 200 series cameras.

Floating elements improved quality at close range.

These elements were to be shifted as a seperate group before focussing.

The last improvement the 40 CFE IF also has floating elements but they are controlled by focussing.

 

If your choice is for retrofocus both CF(E) and the current CFE IF are to be recommended.

Only thing against the IF lens is an increase in distortion.

Nothing serious in absolute figures.

 

The SWC holds a near perfect symmetrical lens design with ultra low distortion and high resolution.

This camera asks for a different method of operation.

That should not be a problem for someone with experience in pano.

For exact control of composition a groundglass and viewer are necessary.

 

The best way to prevent flare is the use of a good professional lensshade. That goes for all lenses and the SWC.

[tony_estcourt]

I did some research when first setting up my blad outfit and settled for the 50mm (CF series). I did this because I had been previously using the 45mm on the Pentax 67 and considered this a little too wide for many pictures, also the 40mm for the blad was much larger and used > 60mm filters. The 50 has proved itself over the years and I don't regret my choice. I think my preference for wider lenses in the past has been driven by the desire to get more foreground in rectangular formats and this isnt such a problem in 6x6.

 

I know many photographers who have gone with the 40 as their favourite wide angle.

 

I now also have a SWCM and whilst this is a great camera, the extreme wide angle of the lens makes it a niche camera for me. I really wouldnt concern yourself with reports of adverse flaring on any of the lenses, they are and continue to be amongst the best available and I would suggest the same comments apply to sharpness.

 

When I was setting out, I looked through books of my favourite photogpahers and researched what they used. Part of the reason for the 50mm choice was that this was the most often used lens in Charlie Waite's "Art of Landscape Photography". At the time, even a 2nd hand lens cost more than my car, so the research was important, even though it sounds a bit sad now.....

[glenn_mabbutt]

Just curious, how do you know you want a 'Blad specifically? You mention you are "venturing into the MF game" - have you used one before, or 6x6 format at all?

<p>

I ask because to me a 'Blad is a signficant expense to (at least initially) experiment with 6x6. Perhaps look into a decent TLR first, and see if you like the format - good TLRs go for a pittance these days, and while many of them are fixed-lens, it would "wet your appetite", so to speak, and if you like it, you could then look at getting something fancier. If you find you really don't like 6x6, you wouldn't be out much with the TLR.

<p>

That said, the other day I was doing some searching on something I don't remember, but stumbled across the <a href="http://photoinf.com/General/Wim_van_Velzen/Composition_with_a_6x6_-_Square_Scotland.htm">Square Scotland</a> page, which talks (and shows) landscapes in 6x6 - very impressive, interesting theories as to why it works as well.

[simonpg]

Bryce, there is no "best" lens"; it will come down to how much you like the look of the various focal lengths.

 

BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT of course, there is no rule saying that when you shoot 6x6 you must produce 6x6 images.

 

Many select the 6x6 format for the relatively large film area and relative compactness of the Hasselblad design as well as having good room to crop should the scene work better that way. ^x4.5 just doesn't give that much flexibility and 6x7 cameras are often cumbersome.

 

Using the comparative angle of view in 135 format terms may help your lens choices - but that is no replacement for seeing with you will get first hand in the viewfinder. So in the end it is best to borrow/rent some gear and see what pleases your eyes.

 

For me I do not like the 40mm look and relative distortion; so, I use the 50mm as my widest angle lens and love it (CF 50mm FLE) I also use the 60mm for other wide angle purposes where I prefer that look. If I were ever going to shoot wider than the 50mm I would definitely only by the SWC 38mm Biogon - its optical design is legendary in terms of corrections.

[michael_cothran]

I recently purchased a 40mm CF FLE lens from ebay after much consideration between it

and the 38mm Biogon. To make a long story short, I have been most happy with it. My

thoughts are this - Zeiss does not make a bad lens - only superb and very superb. So

don't lose any sleep over how much "better" the Biogon is over the Distagon. Here were

my pros & cons in determining which to buy -

The 38 exhibits virtually no distortion. The 40 has slight distortion (supposedly), but I've

not seen it yet. The 38 takes 60mm bayonet filters (or with a B60:62, 67, or higher), any

standard size filter you want to screw in. The 40 requires a 93mm behemoth. I paid $350

for a used polarizer from KEH for it. But the bottom line for me was this: The Biogon is a

separate camera, very difficult to view with the shoe mount viewfinder, other than taking

off the film or digital back, and viewing like a large format camera, or using a prism

upsideways. For strict composing, it is not user friendly in viewing. The 40 mounts to any

standard 500/200 series body - much easier to view and meter. I went with the 40 for

about half the price of a SWCM or 903. You won't be disappointed with either, and I doubt

your eyes will ever detect any real difference in image quality. Here's a Flickr link to two

shots I've made with the 40

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8699297@N03/742787241/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8699297@N03/2186772294/

[d._diehl]

I've been using the 50 CF FLE for years, and love it. Very sharp, very versatile. The 40 is heavy, and the filters are going to cost you a bundle. The SWC is excpetional, but it's a completely separate body to drag around if you're hiking, etc. Hasselblad makes great lenses, none are sub par. My 50 feels like a 28mm on 35mm format. For what it's worth I used the 50 for at least 60% of all my landscapes!

 

Take a look- www.daviddiehlphoto.com<div></div>

[frdchang]

i shot with a zeiss 40mm IF once.

 

to really test it i shot it wide open a couple feet away... directly into the sun with the subject in front.

 

it is a fantastic lens... distortion is only slightly noticeable when you have obvious geometry.

 

here is the image and a high resolution is available for your inspection.

http://www.photo.net/photo/5558023

 

highly recommended.

[paul_gardener]

There is only one proper solution to this question: Get them all!

 

I have the SWC, the 40 mm both in C and CF guise and a couple of 50 mm lenses as well.

I use the 50 most, 40 mm and SWC get equal use and are both well loved for both results and ease to use.

For me the question is will I upgrade now to the latest versions better known as CFE and CFi models.

I decided to buy these upgraded versions because it will not be long befor the end of the V series including its lenses will be announced.

New lenses and a few good bodies will keep me busy for the next 20 years if Kodak permits.

[bryceworld]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their input, its greatly appriciated.

I still havn't found a swc within my reach, theres been a couple on ebay but 3k+ US prices

are out of my price range and a bit over the top to i think.

I'll update with my purchase in the future

Bryce

[bryceworld]

I caved.. with no real good camrea's in sight a nice fotoman 617 popped its head up, and i bought it :)

Panorama i know but with DSLRs busting out 20mp sensors soon you will be able to shoot one frame and crop it..6X6...5X4 take/make your choice.

Thanks again for everyone that took the time to reply, it was very much appreciated!