Hasselblad wide angle lens

[jimmy_m.]

Is there a wide angle lens for the 500 series cameras that is the

most revered and loved? Looking for a wide angle lens to complement

my 80mm and 180mm. Thanks

[light-zone]

I always liked my 50mm lens. I also have a 40mm and 30mm, they are good for occasional fun stuff, but the 50 is a work horse when shooting interiors.

[Robin Smith]

Not really - the 60mm is very popular and fast at f3.5. The 50mm is the "usual" wide, and the 40mm is less usual, some people prefer the 38mm Biogon instead on the SWC.

[jimmy_m.]

Is there a site where i can see the difference between the 40mm and the 50mm with example photos? Other than the Hasselblad site?

[light-zone]

Sometimes you can ge lucky and find a 40mm for sale, and at a good price at that, but even a good price will be a substantial chunk-o-change for a used 40mm. They are a big piece of glass. The 50mm is much more along the lines of a "normal" looking lens, and you'll definatly get more "mileage" from it compared to a 40mm. Our Fisheye and 40mm see the light of day less than once a year. But they were so expensive, and the re-sale value is very low at this time (compared to the new price), that we hold on to them "just in case"

[jerry_lehrer]

Jimmy

 

The 50mm Distagon is by far my most useful wide angle lens. I would

consider no other. But for a complete camera, the SWC is IT!

 

I have tried the 30mm and the 40mm, but found that they don't belong

in the real world. I love the 50mm and the SWC with its 38mm Biogon.

 

Jerry

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

I had a 50 - and it was never wide enough to be much use, so I now have a 40.

 

If 40s are worth so little to sell, they should be cheap to buy.

 

I am hoping to get a 617 back which, with my Schneider Super Angulon 47XL (and Sinar p, wide angle bellows, centre filter...) will give me 120 degrees, if I ever need it.

[barry schmetter]

I think it breaks down something like this.

 

38mm Biogon - Worshipped and adored

 

40mm Distagon - Praised and admired

 

50mm Distagon - Revered and loved

 

60mm Distagon - Feared and hated--no no, I meant honored and desired

 

Seriously, I like the 50 as a good balance between weight, cost and angle of view.

[jay_.]

The 50CF and 50CF-FLE take the same B60 filters as the 80CF and CFE, and all the 180's. The current 50CFi takes a Bay 70. The 40CF and CFE take the threadless 93mm Series-type held by a retaining ring. For a landscape outfit the 50CF or CF-CLE is ergonomically the best combo with your other lenses, and the FLE version is optically superior in the close range. The horizontal angle of view of the 50 is equivalent to a 33mm lens in 35mm format, and the 40mm is equivalent to a 26mm. So there is a significant difference there. Your intended purpose will dictate which lens you will prefer. I owned just the 50CF-FLE for a long time and resisted getting anything wider. Finally I broke down and bought a 40 as well. (I tried the SWC but really disliked its operation).

[Aoresteen]

I had a 50 Chrome Distagon from the late 60's. It wasn't the best lens I ever used. Mine was very soft in the corners with significant fall-off. I was disapointed with it and soon sold it.

 

The 50mm f/4 black T* Distagons are supposed be a lot better - I've never used one though. My current 50mm is a f/2.8 T* F lens which is outstanding, I love it. But it weighs almost 3 pounds (1240 g) compared with 1.75 lbs (795 g) for the 50mm CF f/4.

 

Arthur Tress used only a 40mm C Distagon. That was a BIG lens.

 

The best setup would be a SWC 38mm, and a new 50mm. You'd had a great kit with your 80 and 180 lenses.

[stephen_w.]

You asked for a 500 mount wide-angle lens. I had the black 50 T*; it performed well but was not wide enough for me, and a big and heavy combo with the body and prism; sold the lens for a profit. Then, bought a used SWC/M for a few hundred more and never regretted it. A SWC body in your bag will take up less space and weigh less than a 50 and much less than a 40. Being so compact it has many applications.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jimmy M,

 

You asked for a site where you can see example photos showing the difference between the various lenses.

Have a look at http://www.zeiss.de

You will have to click your way through to find the right page, but on your way there you may find many other things that might be of interest to you too. ;-)

[sergio_ortega6]

Jimmy,

 

I have the 50 CF and the 38 Biogon SWC. Both are great, as everyone will tell you. The 50 gets more use since it's a more gentle WA than the 38. But only you can answer this one.

 

On the other hand, you could just save a bundle and get the 40 now instead of the 50. Then in a few months you won't be rationalizing needing the 38 because the 50 is not wide enough.

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

In case you decide for the 50, make sure you get the 50 FLE! The 50 FLE is not only better close-up, but also at infinity. The older 50s were very sharp in the center, but rather soft in the corners. The 50 FLE is very much better in this respect.

 

Lens designers here at Zeiss mentioned to me that it is easier to make a lens performing exceptionally well if you are allowed to make it long. The 50 FLE is considerably longer than the old 50 non-FLE.

[cg]

KJF is right! The 50mm FLE is a lot better than the old 50mm C CF non-FLE versions. Better corner to corner sharpness specially at short distances with the FLE. I would only get the T* versions. IMHO this is important specially if you shoot interiors. If there are point light sources in the picture, they can create bad flare if your not careful. The T* MC and or new CFi baffling and a proshade can help a lot in these situations.