Distagon 60mm+PC Mutar or 60mm+crop later?

[WAn]

<p>Hello, everybody!<br>

I find myself in a strange habit: approximately once a year I seem to miss shift capability in my Hasselblad and start to consider PC Mutar. Not sure about results of this year, but your opinions are welcome :)<br>

Well, 60mm*1.4 = 84mm is fine for me, I don’t need anything wider.<br>

Alternatively I can use the ‘naked’ 60mm and crop later.<br>

Psychologically the former choice looks better to me: I like to see the final image on the GG. But what about image degradation?<br>

Does the combo 60mm+PC Mutar give considerably worse result than the crop from 60mm alone enlarged to the same size?<br>

I understand that the questions about image quality are not quite correct; they do so much depend on personal standards of the photographer, but nevertheless your subjective opinions please?<br>

Thanks!<br />Andrey</p>

[kparratt]

<p>I have never been attracted to that Hasselblad PC Mutar for the simple reason that the shift is in an arc, not straight up and down. It produces, for me atleast, a discernible, asymmetrical distortion. For the price of the PC Mutar, for ANY price, it is not acceptable to me.<br />I have the 50mm Distagon, and given all factors are well controlled, ie leveling of camera, choice of film etc., I find crops very satisfactory. Imagine if you used a Hasselblad 6x4.5 magazine, and a real shift function, it is the same as selecting the 6x4.5 format from anywhere in the 6x6 frame.<br />The <strong>60mm F3.5 Distagon</strong> is an excellent lens, it's optical formula essentially unchanged since first introduced in the C version, because it is simply very good. (The CB version had a different configuration).<br />Go for the crop, and if you require shift more frequently, a Flexbody would be a better investment. Beyond that, a departure from the Hasselblad range for a fully specified technical camera would be an even better way to go. <br />I often wished the <strong><a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00Hlhv">55mm Schneider PC Super Angulon</a></strong> made for the Rolleiflex MF SLR series was also made with Hasselblad mount. But it sure is a beast of a thing, would only work with 2000/200 series Hasselblads, and cost an arm and a leg. <br />A more viable alternative, and a departure again from the Hasselblad brand, for shift work alone, I would buy a 6x6 medium format camera from Hartblei, with <strong><a href="http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_45mm.htm">45mm Super Rotator</a></strong> tilt-shift lens.<br />I now have a 1954 4x5 Linhof Super Technika, but would still like to have the 45 Super Rotator for medium format work. The only problem Hartblei have is supplying the demand! .. which speaks for itself.</p><div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>The CB 60 mm lens is the same optical design as the other f/3.5 60 mm lenses that were available.<br>

(And just for completenes sake: the 60 mm lens changed twice since it was first introduced as C lens.)</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Hi Q.G. Yes the f5.6 and f4, ... but the f3.5 formula didn't change from C to CF.<br>

I should perhaps have said. "it's <strong>f3.5</strong> optical formula essentially unchanged since ..", because that's what I meant.<br>

And the 60mm CB, ok, then I'm confusing memory of maybe a cutaway diagram of the 80 mm CB? (My library is on the other side of the world.) However, the only functional difference between CF and CB then was ..<br>

.. the CB's lack of F mode? .. in addition of course to the outward appearances, anatomical grips etc.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>Kevin,<br>

You will have to forget about the Hartblei super rotator, at least for a kiev or any P6 mount equiped camera.<br>

Since their joint venture with Carl Zeiss they do not make any P6 lenses and the prices went trough the roof (more than 6 fold)</p>

[charles_freeland]

<p>Like you, I, too, wanted some perspective control for architectural photography using my Hasselblad 503cw. I bought a used mutar. I already had a 40mm wide, which, when mounted onto the mutar, makes it roughly equivalent to a 60mm lens. At the time, 5 years or so ago, there didn't seem any alternative except changing camera systems and going for a 4x5. Since the used price for the mutar wasn't as high as changing systems, I decided to give it a try. It worked out OK, with acceptable results, but it is a quirky set-up to handle. In the first place, it couples between the lens and the body, so it overrides the lens and body shutters. As a result, the mutar has two shutter releases built into a single, complex cable. As I practiced with it, I found that you have to listen carefully to insure that both shutters work properly. If they don't, you get blank, unexposed films. Secondly, because it is mounted between the lens and the body, you have to be careful about mounting it. I was afraid whilst working in the field that something would go wrong and that the whole body would lock up and my photo day would be quickly ended. That never happened to me. The mutar also overrides the mirror lock-up, which I thought to be a disadvantage. Moreover, it requires an additional 1.5 stops of exposure. But, it is compact, and easily carried in my bag. The additional lens of the mutar did not seem to degrade image quality and overall results were acceptable. I didn't notice the distortion that Kevin mentioned. It was helpful to have this lens, but I must say I really haven't used it enough to justify its expense. Perhaps the reason for this is the aforementioned operational quirks. Now, with perspective control available on computer photo software available, I think I might go that route instead of investing in the mutar.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>You can use the mirror prerelease when using the PC-Mutar.<br>

Instead of using the double cable release, you can use two: one to trip the shutter in the lens, the other to operate the camera.<br>

It takes a bit more of your time, but setting up a PC-Mutar isn't quick anyway.</p>

<p>The procedure is simple. The cable release that connects to the lens end of the PC-Mutar is used to shut the shutter in the lens (by pressing it just far enough - not difficult) and to trip the shutter (by pressing it all the way).<br>

When you have closed the shutter in the lens, you can use the pre-release button on the camera to lift the mirror and open the rear shutter. After that you use the cable release attached to the lens end of the PC-Mutar to make the exposure.<br>

Finally, you use the cable release attached to the body end of the PC-Mutar to trip the camera.</p>

<p>That may sound complicated, but it is far easier, and more reliable, than adjusting and using the double cable release.</p>

<p>The PC-Mutar in neutral setting requires only 1 stop more exposure.<br>

If, and if so how much, more when shifted depends on the lens that is put on it, but 1.5 stops in total sounds way too high.</p>

[charles_freeland]

<p>Thanks for the tips, Q.G. de Bakker, regarding mirror lock-up with the mutar. I've never had an owner's manual for it, so was not informed about that technique. Anyway, I did find in my experience that opening up at least 1 and often times 1.5 stops was about right for most of my exposures. I was using a Sekonic 508 meter, the spot mode, in most cases, for interior work in Thai Buddhist temples. In those days, I was generally shooting Fuji transparency film and some 100 ISO black and white. Maybe it's time to set up the mutar and try again! </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Charles,</p>

<p>You can find a user manual <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWVSys.aspx">here</a> (in the "Lenses" section).</p>

 

[WAn]

<p>Gentlemen,<br />thank s lot for your answers, very informative!<br>

I still didn't arrive at any decision, probably it will be a matter of price. But already an unpleasant surprise to me is that the Mutar works as a sort of arc rather than the straight rise/fall; it means that the composing (the alightment) will be an iterative process... Not sure whether I'll like that..</p>