Hassey 1.4 PC Mutar OR Kiev 55mm Tilt and Shift lense

[evan_dong]

I am thinking of purchasing the Hasselblad 1.4X PC Mutar. I am

presently using a 503CW and 553ELX. In addition to my Hasselblad, I

also use an Exakta 66 Mk3. My question, does anyone have any

experience with the 1.4X PC Mutar. I understand that you can use

lenses from 40mm up to 100mm. Granted that I will use this lense on

occasion to shot buildings and landscape. The cost is prohibitly

expensive and I have reservation on spending that kind of money.

 

As an alternate, I understand that there is 3 versions of a shift

lense by Kiev Arsenal. The lenses are 45mmf3.5, 55mmF4.5 and the

65mmF3.5. I have narrow the choice down to the 55mm as this lens

replicate the Schneider version. (for Rollei MF camera.)

Anyone has any experience with either the Hassey PC Mutar or the Kiev

55mm? What is the optical quality of both unit and is there any image

degradation? Any factors on what I should buy and why. Pros and Cons

on either unit is most welcome.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Evan Dong

[dominique_cesari]

The PC-Mutar x 1,4 is in fact a x 1,5 and the Zeiss 40 mm is 40,9 mm.

The result of the combo is a shiftable 60 mm. Good.But expensive (PC-Mutar PLUS Zeiss 40 mm). My experience is only on a few pictures.

I would be glad to hear of the 55 mm Kiev.

[terry_dent1]

Does the Kiev lens have a shutter in it? If it doesn't it won't work on your Hass. bodies. You would need a 2000 or 200 body.

[andre_la_pierre]

Hi Evan: I have no experience with the Mutar. However, I do know the Kiev shift lenses. The 45mm is not made by Arsenal works, but by Hartblei (VRN). It's a modified Mir-26 wideangle. The same goes for the 65mm, which is also a modified Kiev lens. The 55mm is a true shift lens, actually designed as a shift lens from the ground up. Also, the 55mm is a more modern design optically, with 9 elements. That is not to say that the other lenses are inferior - these are really good lenses. The 45mm is known to be a little soft wide open, but resolution reaches really good values after stopping it down. The 65mm is also good, resolution beeing somewhat better from wide open. In general, the older Kiev lenses really peak at f11-f16. The 55mm is excellent, but also the most expensive of these three. Neither of these lenses have built in shutters - so you need a focal plane shutter body. If you can spare the money, I would say go for the 55mm. But again - all three are optically really good, well-designed lenses. They all give you plenty of tilt and shift capability. For the money, these are bargains. I have noticed no image degradation when using T&S. Performance is about equal to the Schneider, but it's a different design, certainly not a clone.

Regards, Andre

[john_kelleher1]

I have owned the PC Mutar for about three months now. For as much trouble as it is to set up the double cable release, readjust the release cables, focus, remember to calculate the loss of one stop, refocus and remember to unlock the release (the manual does not tell you that part); it may be better to just use a roll film back on a 6X9 or 4X5 view or field camera. I ended up buying an older 2000FCM to eliminate the double cable release, and recocking the shutter mechanism on the converter. It's nice to have the spare body, but I still have to do all the other stuff. I can also use the focal plane shutter body on my older bellows assembly.

 

Overall, the view camera option would have been cheaper, more flexible, and better (optically speaking). Just less compact!

 

Good luck,

[michael_heal]

<p>I second the recommendation that you seriously consider buying a 4x5 view camera instead of the Mutar. The entire view camera, including body, lens, and backs, can be less expensive. Plus, you get a much wider choice of focal lengths. A 90mm lens on a 4x5 camera would be a good starting point. The angle of view would be more similar to a 50mm in MF, rather than the 60mm effective focal length you would get with the 40mm + 1.4x Mutar. You can get roll film backs to use on the 4x5 if you want to avoid sheet film. If you plan to use roll film, you might want a shorter-focal length lens, though.</p>

<p>If you would prefer to stay with Hasselblad, you should also consider getting a SWC. It does not provide shift, but the 38mm lens is superb and you could achieve the same effect by cropping your images.</p>

[david_meltzer1]

I realize this thread is quite old, but I thoughtI might add a remark. There is no doubt of the quality of the Hasselblad Zeiss items, but I must say that a reflex camera, 40 mm inverted telephoto lens to clear the mirror, 1.4x magnifier to expand the image circle, to get about 60 mm focal length with f5.6 and +- 16 mm of shift must be the most inelegant optical solution possible for this problem.

 

You have a lens and converter with a list price of almost $8000.00 weighing over three pounds and having 16 (!) optical elements. This does not count the price and weight of the camera body and magazine.

 

Compare, for example, with a Fuji GSW690 rangefinder camera. It has a list price under $2000.00 and can be purchased for about $1000.00 It weighs just over three pounds for the whole camera. There is a 65 mm f5.6 lens with 6 (not 16) elements. If you crop to 55 mm width from the full 84 mm width negative, you have 29 mm extra width which is the same as +- 14.5 mm of shift. There are no cables to hook up and adjust. Simply point the camera in the correct direction (e.g. with the film plane vertical)and shoot.

 

I realize that if you already have a 40 mm lens on a Hasselblad the PC Mutar is a compact addition to you kit. Another approach, of course, is to point the 40 mm without the mutar in the correct direction, shoot, and crop and magnify the negative by another 1.4x.

 

This is the approach I take with the similar focal length 903SWC at 38 mm. The image quality even at the edges is so high with this lens that the occasional architectural photo works well this way.

 

David Meltzer