Hasselblad 50 and 120 for all-purpose use?

[asimrazakhan]

<p>I travel a lot. And I love to backpack everywhere shooting travel photos. In 35mm 'small' format I don't use a 50mm. I much prefer a 35mm and 75mm combination with the addition of a 20mm.</p>

<p>Now, after doing a lot of research on FOV in the square format compared to small format, I've found that the 120 Makro is the closest thing to a small format 75mm.</p>

<p>In terms of wide angle lenses, I'd love to get a 40 and 60mm combination but the 40 is too big, heavy and expensive. So then I'm left with a 50mm f/4 to cover all my wide angle shots. </p>

<p>So is a 50 and 120 combination a good translation into medium format from small format? Or do you think I should go with something else?</p>

[andrew booth]

<p>Back when I owned a 503, I bought it with the 120, then added the 50 to (I thought) complete my kit.<br>

I then found a cheap 80 on eBay and added that to the collection.<br>

I found that for travel stuff, the 50/80 became my 'go to' combination much more regularly than 50/120. I just found that 50 was too wide for very general use, and the 120 was too slow/heavy and too much lens for a general purpose lens.<br>

In my opinion the standard 80 is a must have on the 'blad - and with the addition of the 50 you have most bases covered. Remember that you can crop more on medium format - so you don't always have to compose as tightly as you would on 35.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>50 and 120 might be a bit too far apart. I would consider either 50 and 100 or 60 and 120. The 60 is quite a lot smaller than the 50 as well. Personally I like the 80, and have 38 and 150 to go with it. 120 is good if you need closer focusing, which is always good to have in a travel lens. Since you considered 40 and 60, that may be a good solution. Start with the 60 and try to find a 38 later if you are still keen on the idea. That gives you a backup body as well, which is always good to have when travelling.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>With my 501CM, the 80mm is the workhorse lens. I don't have a 50mm or 60mm yet (working on it). The 120mm and 250mm get used infrequently, but when you need them, you<em> need</em> them. Otherwise, it's just a matter of getting close enough, or far enough, for the 80mm....</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Medium format photography is not one of extremes, especially in terms of focal length. The modest "extremes" that do exist tend to be disproportionately expensive compared to what you find in small format cameras.</p>

<p>It's hard to beat the traditional array of 50, 80 and 150 mm lenses. The 120 is not far from that convention. The gap between 50 and 120 is too large for general photography, so you would find something in the middle very useful. The 80 is the traditional "normal" lens, but some use a 60 in this sense. It's similar to the preference of a 35mm lens vs a 50mm lens in 35mm photography. In that case, photojournalists tend to think "wider" is normal. My own preference for a core kit, one I use to travel "light", is a 50/100/180 combination, which is on the long side for many.</p>

<p>The 120 Makro is a good lens at all distances, but is said to be less sharp than others at infinity (I don't notice a problem). It is certainly the lens of choice for closeups, with or without extension tubes. However, the 150 is a little longer and probably better for portraits in that regard. Used 150's are a lot cheaper than 120's, probably because there are so many of them on the market.</p>

<p>A 40mm lens is nice to have, especially if you have a digital back (1.5x cropping factor), but not one you use every day for film. It is definitely on the "extreme" side in Hasselblad terms, heavy and expensive. A 50mm lens is wide enough for most purposes, and a lot lighter and cheaper. The old C50 was a jug, but the CF50 is not much bigger than the CF60. The "FLE" version has better optics than the C and non-FLE CF versions.</p>

[chris_laskey]

<p>When I was looking into buying my 500 C/M I went back and forth over the 80/100/120 decision. Ultimately I went with the 80mm. Since then I've borrowed a 100 and a 120. And in hindsight, I feel I made the right decision with the 80mm. You won't catch me saying one bad word about the 100 or the 120, they are both spectacular lenses. But for my style of shooting the 80mm fit me: I like to go on walks with just the hasselblad and light meter, and leave the rest of the gear at home. The 80mm gives me enough room to fit in just about anything I come across, while giving me some great options for crops. I felt the 120mm was a little too long. The 100mm vs. the 80mm is a harder decision, ultimately only broken by the 80mm's wider view for landscapes. Although there's a part of me that naturally wanted to go against the 50/80/150 convention, it is a common convention for a reason: it works.</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>Asim,</p>

<p>I use Ikka's setup as what he recommended. Traveling overseas LIGHTLY, I would recommend (1) A-12 back if you could live with just one back. If not, then limite it to 2 backs.<br>

I have used the newer 50mmCF FLE & the 100mmCF [Combo 1] and also the 60mmCF & 120mmCF[Combo 2].<br>

If you do not have a problem with the older C T* lenses, that would help big time on size, weight, and bulkiness.<br>

If that is the case for the C version T*, then go for the 100mm C T* or 120mm C T*. You would be limited by the aperature size, but weight & bulkiness wil be n your favor.<br>

The 50mm & 60mm C lenses are not that much smaller in size and weight over the newer CF version. You would have to handle and compare them. The older 60mmF4 C is a smaller lens, but is not multicoated. The 5.6 version is too dim. The later C 3.5 is almost as big as the later CF version.<br>

The 50mm in any configuration is a heavy & bulky lens. If you have to ave a 50mm, then go for the CF FLE at minimum.</p>

<p>Evan</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>My favourite 'small kit' contains the 60 mm Distagon and the 150 mm Sonnar.<br>

You can do almost anything with that combo.</p>

<p>I would (and do) carry A24 backs instead of A12 when travelling light. It helps that my favourite film is still available in 220 size. ;-)<br>

It cuts down both on the number of times you need to change film, and you carry half the number of rolls (and film can take up lots of space).</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>My current combination is 60, 80, and 150. I used to have 50, but I sold it because I found 60 is wide enough for me for group portrait or landscape. At long end, I found 150 was good for tight portrait though I am thinking of 180 sometimes. Both 150 and 180 are good for landscape and detail too. My ideal combination is 60, 100, and 150 plus/or 180 if wife is generous when my birthday is coming up.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I love the 50 fle, fantastic lens, maybe my favorite. My other is the 100, that lens breathes and has an airy quality to it like no other, and it is insanely sharp. I don't own a 120, but I've used them and that is a very critical closeup lens capable of the most demanding results, absolutely superb. It really comes down to the angle of view and the weight you want to carry.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I'm with Ikka -- 38 Biogon/SWC; 80 Planar; 150 Sonnar. Works for me. If I could only have one Hassie, I'd go with the 500CM with 60 Distagon & 100 Planar. Remember, your 50 & 120 are both slower 1:4 lenses.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>" [...] I'd go with the 500CM with 60 Distagon & 100 Planar. Remember, your 50 & 120 are both <strong>slower</strong> 1:4 lenses."</em><br>

Yep.<br />By a whopping 0.38 stop ...</p>

<p>Your 38 mm is only 0.14 stop faster.</p>

[stever_max]

<p>I have an 38mm Biogon 903 SWC, 50mm Distagon CF, 80mm Planar CF; 150 mm Sonnar CF, 250mm Sonnar CF, and a 2x extender. I just got the 38mm so I cannot comment on the usage yet. I use the 80mm the most, the 50mm next, then the 250mm and finally the 150mm.</p>

<p>That should muddy the waters for you.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I owned the older 50mm C T* and while it rendered fabulous images I found it too wide for my everyday use -- something like a 28mm in 135 format. I grativitated to the 60mm which I find exceptional for my scenics AND group portraits. I also owned the 120mm MAKRO and I found that a fabulous lens as well. However, I didnt really need the 120mm for my work, and being an accountant I decided to sell the Makro ($1300) and turned around snagging a 100mm CF (Mint) for $600. I am throughly stoked with the 100mm. Incredibly sharp portraits and has the bokeh I want.</p>

<p>For relatively wide, Id follow Paul's suggestion of the 38 Biogon, or the 43mm on the Mamiya 7 -- but we're talking alot of extra money now. Get yourself a reasonably wide lens your happy with and use creativity to make up the difference.</p>

[david_carson]

I have a 120 makro and a Leica 75mm. Because the square format feels wider than a rectangular one, I think a 150mm might be the ticket for you for the top end.

[david_carson]

<Deleted, double post>

[david k.]

<p>I started with the 100 Planar and added the 50 FLE and 180 Sonnar. I really don't think of them as necessarily complementing each other.......more a matter of 3 different types of shooting.<br>

Don't think I would ever need anything more, for close-up work the 180 and an extension tube is a good way to go.</p>

 

[jeroen_van_weert]

<p>The 80mm is by far the lightest lens one can carry around. Excellent allround lens, even fully open in low light conditions. The 50 and 120 are both a lot heavier. But since one uses a Hassy for maximum quality, I would always try to use a longer focallenght lens than to crop the image during printing. I find I use the 50 a lot for landscape and indoors and the 120 for portraits, although one has to crop the image then... If you want to travel light, I would take either 50+80 or 80+120, depending on whether you are more a wide-angle or tele person. or even the three since the 80 is really not that much weight or size increment in your bag. I do virtual all my B&W on Tri-X 320 in 220 format, for all the reasonc Q.G de Bakker already wrote. But I do use 120 format for Colour since I cannot find a lab that handles 220 well.</p>