Hasselblad 80mm with Proxar?

[matthew_delphenich]

<p>I just ordered a 501c with an 80mm C T* lens, and I would like to get a Proxar diopter to go with it. So far I have been unable to find any real world advice as to which version of the Proxar would be appropriate for this lens to take a reasonably close-up portrait (face filling most but not all of the frame). The Proxar comes in 2m, 1m, and .5m flavors. Do these numbers indicate the ultimate focusing distance while they're being used, or do they mean something else?<br>

Also, I've been a little unsure as to exactly which filter size I want to be looking at for my 80mm C T* lens. Although it is designated C, it has the barrel design of the newer CF lenses (minus the exposure lock button and the orange markings). As far as I can tell, the older C lenses took a bay50 filter and the newer CF lenses took bay60. Would I be correct in assuming the in-between C T* lens uses the bay60 as well? I won't actually be receiving the camera for about a week, but I would like to be able to get my accessories together so I can use it immediately! Thanks.</p>

[philippderganz]

<p>the values given for the proxars are the maximum focussing distance when the lens is focussed to infinity and the proxar is in place. so with the proxar 1m you can focus from maybe 0,6 to 1m.<br>

felipe</p>

[kparratt]

<p>... so following on from Philip, the most usable for the close portrait would be the 2m, and at a pinch the 1m. I have used both with pleasing results, especially profiles. Sorry, don't have one on hand but will look into the files and post an example.<br>

With that CF type lens barrel, yes, you need to look for Bay 60 filters, and the Proxars as well.<br>

Additional tip: When using both Proxar and filter, first attach the Proxar to the lens, then the filter afterwards. Diopters, like the Proxars and reading glasses, always work best when close to the primary lens.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Matthew,</p>

<p>Your results with the 80mm for close up head shots, even without the proxar, will show distortions due to the relative nearness to the nose compared to the ears. In other words, the nose will loom forward while the rest of the face recededs. With the proxar, this effect will be more pronounced.</p>

<p>If that's the effect you want, go for it. If you are wanting to actually do something like glamour or portrait head shots, you need a lens of approximately twice the "normal" focal length of longer. In the case of the Hasselblads, that means a 150mm lens or longer.</p>

<p>The 80mm will serve you quite well for half to full length images.</p>

[matthew_delphenich]

<p>Thanks for all of your help, this was exactly the information that I was looking for, and having a hard time finding. Kevin, thanks for the additional tip about the filter order (I'm sure I would have ended up doing this backwards!). Tim, thanks for the tip about the longer lenses. I do generally use between 85-135mm equivalent lenses for portraiture on my DSLR, unfortunately I just dropped about $900 on the Hassy body, lens, and 2 backs, so my wallet has not recovered quite yet (starving art student, here). The Proxar just seems like a nice (cheap) way to get some similar capabilities until I can do it right.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Matthew,</p>

<p>You could also look into a Rokunar or similar 2x extender for your Blad. I have one that keeps remarkable sharpness with my prime lenses through at least 16x20/20x24 prints. The only drawback is the usual two f stop subtraction from the existing brightness and slightly more difficulty in viewing and focusing. Just be careful to focus on the eyes and power up your strobes as needed.</p>

<p>Check KEH.com to see what they may have. New these were well over $200 but now you can likely find one for well under $100.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Mathew, just get the Proxar, and try it for yourself. You will not be disappointed.<br>

Shown here is a portrait, a grab-shot really, taken at a party. The scene was a conversation around the kitchen table under available light. The good thing about the Proxar is that close-ups are achievable without exposure compensation. This is scanned from a print, because the negative is packed away.<br>

Hasselblad 500C 80mm Planar C Proxar 1m<br>

EFKE R21 developed in Emofin (2 bath from 1ltr powder kit)<br>

Exposure 1/15 sec hand-held @ f2.8 (my elbows were firmly resting on the dining table)<br>

I didn't have the money to simply buy the ideal lens outfit, with the perfect focal length for every single application according to global opinion and Hasselblad brochures. For most of my life I have had to be resourceful and improvise with whatever was at hand.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[kparratt]

<p>I'm glad you asked the question Matthew. It's made me dig out this print and revisit the evening. It's amazing too what a scanner can pull out of a rather lack-lustre Ilfospeed print!<br>

Note the extreme shallow depth of field at full aperture, and the beautiful background blur!</p><div></div>

[kevin_willey]

<p>Kevin P.<br>

Your scanned photo looks marvelous. What scanner and SW did you use. I'm struggling to decide what to spend on a scanner: V750, Cool Scan9000, or take the plunge on an IMACON. Latter would cut deeply into my contemplative intent to buy a CFV-39 digital back for my V system. Keep reading that EPSON and Nikon are OK, but then I'll read a comment by someone who wished they had invested in an IMACON much earlier because of the shadow detail that can be scanned. Obviously, your image has a potential bearing on my decision.<br>

Thanks in advance. Kevin W.</p>

[kevin_willey]

<p>Kevin P.<br>

Your scanned photo looks marvelous. What scanner and SW did you use? I'm struggling to decide what to spend on a scanner: V750, Cool Scan9000, or take the plunge on a used or even new IMACON. Latter would cut deeply into my budget to buy a CFV-39 digital back for my V system. I have often read that EPSON and Nikon are satisfactory, but then I'll read a comment by someone who wished they had invested in an IMACON much earlier because of the increased shadow detail that can be scanned. Obviously, your image has a potential bearing on my decision.<br>

Thanks in advance. Kevin W.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Hello Kevin W.<br>

Yes I too was impressed with the scan. Couple of years ago I bought an Epson V700 in England (a deal on Amazon.co.uk) which included Silverfast (don't recall which version), Photoshop Elements 3 and Epson's own scanning softwear. I was a rank beginner with zero experience, but devoured reviews for days before buying.<br>

By just trying stuff, asking questions here and finding reviews on the web, I find I'm about 1/4 of the way up the learning curve, with regard to the potential of the scanner and software.<br>

Straight out of the box with what Epson supplied, the scanner is remarkably good for reflected copy. I can't imagine anything better. Not Silverfast, but using the Epson software, I produced a really large file of this print you see, at 600dpi, because I like to get right in to fix flaws and remove dust particles with precise cloning. I don't like the softening effect of ICE, and always switch it off.<br>

For film, there are some improvements that can be made to the Epson V700 and V750 models which are <a href="00VBzW">discussed in another thread still current.</a> It's worth reading.<br>

I have done a lot without the improvements mentioned, simply because I've had to. From several accounts, the V700 and V750 are capable of producing scans that come pretty close to high-end pro scanners, and I am still happy with the choice, except maybe I would have bought the V750.<br>

Regarding shadow detail, I've been able to extract that with simple actions in Elements 3, even recover images from negatives so thin, it simply never ceases to amaze.<br>

For the extra gain in going the Imacon route, for me at least, would require a high work flow with commensurate cash flow. I have books to produce whose illustrations will be analogue photographs in all formats 35mm up to 5x7. The V700/750 handle up to 8x10 sheet film, and is everything I will ever need.<br>

In the other discussion (via the link), special 3rd party film holders are the hot topic. Once I have these, the entire investment of V700 + new holders is only a fraction one has to pay for the Imacon. Then, the only thing standing between my camera work and high quality poster sized prints is not the equipment, but me.</p>

<p>Cheers, Kevin.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Here is a short Epson <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-V750-M-Color-Scanner/dp/B000EZU0WE">presentation video</a> on the V700/V750-M Pro at Amazon.com</p>

<p>When I bought the V700, there was no wet-scan accessory offered with the V750, else I may have gone for it instead.</p>

[kevin_willey]

<p>Kevin P.<br>

Terrific response, thank you for taking the time to provide a comprehensive answer, as well as links to additional info. I checked and may well opt for the V750-M Pro. Again, thanks. Responses like yours make this forum indispensable for aspiring amateur photographers who can gain from others lessons.<br>

Kevin W. </p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>How would the focus distance of the 2m proxar be on a 150mm lens? Would it still be 2m with the lens on infinity, or will it be farther?<br>

Thanks</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>It will be 2 meter.</p>

<p>When left to infinity, the thing is fairly simple: the focal length of the proxar is equal to the focussing distance.<br>

Adding a 0.5 diopter lens will turn a 150 mm lens into a (approx.) 139 mm lens. The lens to film distance when set to infinity doesnt change, you are effectively adding about 11 mm of extension. 11 mm of extension will focus a 139 mm lens at 2 meters.<br>

You can use that reduced focal length to calculate what adding more extension (i.e. using the focussing mount of the lens) does. Not a simple calculation, though.</p>