New to MF... Is this Hassey Setup a good deal?

[brad_white]

<p>Hi-- long time lurker here. I am new to MF. I am looking for a good startup camera I won't have to upgrade. I plan to shoot only B&W (color will be for my D800E) using my recently set-up dark room (I have experience developing 35mm). <br>

I stumbled upon the following set up and I was wondering if it seems like a good deal. I shoot primarily landscapes. The kit includes:<br>

<br />500c<br>

500c/m (crome)<br>

WLF for each<br>

40mm f/4 c<br>

80mm f/2.8 t*<br>

150mm ?? model<br>

250mm ?? model (crome)<br>

(all zeiss)<br>

1 extra back, 1 lens hood<br>

<br />The asking price is $1500 and from the photos I have, everything seems to be in OK used shape.<br>

<br />I plan on selling the 500c and the longer lenses to help offset the cost. </p>

<p>My questions are as follows: Is this a good deal (I think it is, but I am wondering if I am missing something) and is there anything to look for when I am examining the cameras before purchasing them? (for instance, I hear that the CU, CR, & CE early serial numbers are bad news). <br>

I have a limited time before I view the camera so fast responses are most appreciated!!!</p>

<p> </p>

[sfcole]

<p>It's a great price.....if everything works. Repairs could cost $100s. That's why it's just simpler to buy with a warranty like KEH has. Yes, you'll spend more money. But if you're buying a Hasselblad outfit just for the fun of it, then you can afford it (especially if you have an 800E).</p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>simple answer: buy it. Little longer, do a search for the various idiosyncrasies on each of these items to look for when purchasing used. Shutter speeds on the lenses, foams on the bodies and backs etc.<br>

But I think the price is good. You probably won't get that much for the 250 chrome or the 500c because of their vintage and depending on your situation, may just be easier to keep. 'blad glass is never bad to own.</p>

 

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>If the shutters are working and accurate, this is a very, very good price. Don't be too quick to sell off the 250mm lens. If you are into doing head shots, both that and the 150mm are wonderful lenses with the 250mm having the edge on controlling depth of field to a very short range in single heads in a portrait. The 40mm is fantastic for interiors and landscapes.</p>

<p>I use all the lenses you mention plus the 500mm and can't fault any of them for sharpness. You'll get very little for the 500C body, so you may as well keep it as a back up.</p>

<p>By the way, the KEH repair department does excellent work on Hasselbald gear at very reasonable prices.</p>

[savagesax]

I'm coming from another approach. Yes it's a very good deal.

 

Shoot a roll of film with the different lenses. The chrome lenses tend to be stiffer to turn the focusing ring, compared to the black lenses. So make sure they are fairly free to move.

 

Needless to say, check the shutters. Often oil gets on the shutter blades. It's easy to see the oil. This effects the speeds of the shutters and gums up the shutters often to the point of not working at all.

 

Lastly, parts are limited, but a lot of repair places have supplies and they can also make things like springs to fix the shutters. Hassselblad still makes a lot of the parts for the black lenses, if not all of them.

 

If everything seems to be in good working condition its a good deal. Just be careful. Repairs could very well double the cost of the $1500 asking price.

 

I did my own repairs to my gear. At first you need to watch someone a few times. They are all fairly easy to fix minor problems and some of the major problems such as the shutter replacements and cleaning the blades. Same with the backs. The 2 major problems with the backs are light leaks and and the frames overlap. The overlapping takes 15 minutes to fix in most cases. Just a drop of oil by the plastic gear. However the plastic lever may need to be replaced. The light leaks are also very fast fixes. You simply replace the traps. It's so easy to do I made my own traps for about 30 cents.

 

Hope this helps.

[brad_white]

<p>Thank you all for your kind and prompt responses. My seller just backed out of the deal due to having second thoughts of letting go of his gear. I can't say I blame him. It sounds to me that this camera is what I am looking for-- now I just need to find another one for sale. <br>

<br />Let me ask you all this: do the bodies and backs tend to have more issues than the lenses? If so, it may be wise for me to purchase the higher risk pieces from KEH/B&H and then pick up the lenses along the way. What would you do if you had to start over?<br>

<br />Thanks again for your responses... this is just the sort of information I was looking to find-- and I have been doing a fair amount of reading on this site. It is a great source of information!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Just weigh what sounds like a very good deal (if it is all in good working condition) with the headache of selling off the pieces you don't want--and then maybe buying extra stuff you do want. You're buying two bodies and selling one. You're buying four lenses and selling at least two.</p>

<p>And I say selling at least two lenses because that assumes you keep both the 40mm and the 80mm. If you print to U.S.-typical larger sizes with a 4:5 aspect ratio, those are like 21mm and 43mm lenses on your D800 (or a 35mm film camera). Are those really the focal lengths you want? Or would you really be happier with a 50mm (like a 27mm on your D800) and/or a 60mm (32mm on the D800) lens? Last but not least, some people seem to find the optical performance of the older 40mm lenses (like the C) disappointing; are you likely to sell it and get a newer-type 40mm (like a CFE or CFE-IF)?</p>

<p>My basic point is: buying a big kit can get you a great deal--but mostly if the big kit is very close to the kit you really want / need. Otherwise, it can be a big hassle.</p>

 

[paul_loveteck]

<p>If the seller does not offer a warranty or doe not provide the dates of a relatively recent cla (less than 4 years) it is NOT a good deal as you will most probably spend a lot to have a good working system. In addition of the cost, you will need to waste a lot of time getting your system in good condition.<br>

By trying to sell a 500C which you bought without warranty you will expose yourself to a lot of headache and / or loss of money.<br>

Only buy from a seller providing a warranty and a return policy. If you don't you will end up with a bad deal and a system costing more than one with a warranty.<br>

Both 500C's and 500C/M can be old and without proper care they won't work correctly, believe me.<br>

Finally, I would not buy a 40mm C lens. They are huge, difficult to fix today and inferior quality compared to the CF and later lenses.<br>

If you expect better quality from your Hasselblad than what you get with your D800e, you need a good working camera, not an unknown condition system.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>If you go the KEH route for purchasing, be pleasantly aware that their ratings are often in the buyer's favor. I've bought many things from them rated at "bargain" that I would personally easily call "Excellent". My 500C/M body, A12 back, and my 150mm Sonnar CF were all rated bargain and had perfect glass and near perfect cosmetics and performance levels to match. I've had those for about 10 years and have had absolutely no issues with any of the items.</p>

<p>I have used Hasselblad gear for over thirty years and have only had one shutter repair and 2 backs that needed new light traps in all that time. Great gear in both the C and CF lenses and I've been equally happy with 500C, C/M, 2000FC/M and 500ELM bodies.</p>

<p>I currently use the 500C/M and 2000FC/M bodies plus a mix of C and C/M lenses. Optically they are all terrific. Mechanically, the CF lenses are a bit easier to work with, but only marginally so. The C series have an interlock between the f stop and shutter speed ring that requires a bit of fussiness to use, but no big deal.</p>

<p>As to the 40mm C lenses possibly being optically inferior to the newer versions, I guess that is possible, but I've used a 40mm C since about 1978 and have had no issues with very sharp prints up to 24x30, even using filters. Of course, I shoot almost exclusively from a tripod and often with the mirror up to assure no camera shake that would degrade image quality with any lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[western_isles]

<p>I recently went back to medium format from digital and I would recommend it. Kit seems to be good buy.</p>

<p>The only caveat is that at first you might struggle with the square format, I know I did at first. However, with experience that will improve. Eventually, you will love it or hate it, I love it.</p>

<p>Good luck and let us see some images if you decide to go medium format.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Slightly off topic but very relevant:<br /> Brad, when you do eventually get an MF camera, you'll need to update your darkroom skills. If you haven't already got a developing tank for 120 film, then take some time to acquaint yourself with what's available. Loading 35mm film into almost any type of reel is fairly foolproof; loading 120 film isn't. 120 film will buckle, stick and be prone to getting 'half-moon' creases in it. Plastic reels will stick unless perfectly clean and dry, and stainless reels need a lot of practise to load if you're not to crease and mark the film.</p>

<p>The best plastic tanks are definitely Jobo's. The 1500 series tanks and reels are economical to use, but the small diameter reels can be a bit sticky. The larger 2500 series reels load like magic, but the larger tank takes a lot more solution unless you have a rotary processor.</p>

<p>Anyway, that's enough for now, but these are all things to think about if you're moving to rollfilm. And BTW, you won't see much, if any, improvement in IQ over your D800, although real silver prints will beat any B&W inkjet output hands down. If only there was an affordable digital-to-optical printer on the market!</p>

<p>Edit. As a follow up to what Frank said - if you don't print square, then a 645 camera will get you the exact same image quality as a 6x6cm one. With the advantage of getting more frames on the film and a generally cheaper purchase cost for camera and lenses.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>This was a good price. I think the seller will regret not selling them to you. I also think you would have found selling the longer lenses not as easy as you might think, given what you might want for them. Personally, I would have kept them. The 150mm, in particular, is invaluable. Having said this, I agree with Rodeo re the quality and the 645. I had a Hasselblad kit for 15 years, but if I was buying today I would get a 645.</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Only three observations about 645 format. One is that as good as the lenses are, they are not Hasselblad glass which is pretty exceptional.</p>

<p>Second is that with square format, you don't have to deal with the fussiness of going back and forth to vertical or horizontal. Just crop as desired when you print.</p>

<p>The other is that with most 645's that I know of, the film is loaded on inserts which are not light tight and therefore not changeable mid roll. The totally interchangeable Hasselblad backs allow for using the Zone system on black and white with different exposure and development combinations among the separate backs, and you can go from black and white to color negative or transparency films and back without having to use multiple camera bodies as you would with most 645 systems.</p>

 

[joe_user3]

<p>I've shot 35mm format, 645 format, 6x6 format, 67 format, and 4x5 format. I like the 6x6 square the best. I find that it is somewhat liberating, in that I seem to "forget" I am shooting in a "format" at all, and can concentrate on the image itself, not having to worry about shooting a horizontal or vertical "format" image. While I feel it is all a matter of personal opinion, certainly, I still have a fondness for the square. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>On 645 versus 6x6, IMOPO it depends. Not having to rotate the camera with the 6x6 and then just cropping later may or may not matter to you, depending in shooting style, but it can be a real issue. And then some people just prefer, and/or just do better composing for, the square format--whatever floats your boat.</p>

<p>Now to take issue:<br /> "[W]ith most 645's that I know of, the film is loaded on inserts which are not light tight and therefore not changeable mid roll." That is true of some 645's, but there are plenty of 645's that use interchangeable backs that are functionally identical to Hasselblad backs. Among the reasonably-common 645's with interchangeable backs are the Mamiya 645 Pro and 645 Pro TL, all of the Mamiya 645 AF series, the Contax 645, and the Bronica ETRS and ETRSi--oh yeah, and the Hasselblad H1 and H2.<br /> "[A]s good as the lenses are, they are not Hasselblad glass which is pretty exceptional." No doubt some lenses for Hasselblad V's are exceptional, but some are less so; and they are not exactly Hasselblad lenses, they are Zeiss, Schneider, etc. (i.e., other manufacturers') lenses for Hasselblad. And more than a few people would take issue with the implicit disfavorable comparison to various 645 lenses, including the Schneider lenses for Mamiya 645 AF cameras, many of Mamiya's own 645 lenses, the Zeiss lenses for the Contax 645, many of the Bronica ETR 645 lenses, and the lenses for the Hasselblad H1 and H2. With any of the major systems, if you find the newest-generation lenses in good condition, they should perform quite well; but in many cases, 40-plus-year-old optical designs and/or lenses that aren't in good condition can result in lower image quality.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"but in many cases, 40-plus-year-old optical designs and/or lenses that aren't in good condition can result in lower image quality."</i><br><br>But in many cases, 40-plus-year-old optical designs are as good as modern day offerings.<br>They knew how to make good lenses back then (not exactly the Stone Age, 40+ years ago) too. And they did have the means to do so. So they did.<br>Lens design since then has seen a shift towards autofocus, which needs smaller, lighter bits to be moved during focussing. So lenses are designed for group focussing instead of unit focussing, resulting in complex movements that minimize the effect on image quality that are a bit easier to compute with modern day computer power. And using that same computer power to compute complex group movements, we have seen more high quality zoom lenses.<br>But they made excellent lenses 40+ years ago. No worries.<br><br>Lenses that aren't in good condition can of course result in lower image quality.

[dave_redmann]

<p>Q.G., I do not dispute for a moment that there are excellent lenses more than 40 years old, some of which probably equal the most modern lenses in most respects. As examples, there are excellent 75 / 80mm Xenotars and Planars that are now 60 or fast approaching it. On the other hand, especially for wider-angle lenses, the designs seem to have improved appreciably, like the various 40mm lenses for Hasselblad 6x6s and the various 45mm lenses for Mamiya 645s.</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Indeed, Dave. Brute force computing made possible by computers made it a lot easier to calculate lenses that changed their 'being' every time you touch the focus ring. That meant more internal focussing lenses. More zoom lenses. And lenses that use floating elements to maintain image quality during focussing, such as the new wide angles you mention.

[farrell_elion]

I'm with Tim and Q.Bakker here. The newer designs are better ( on optical test beds and lines per millimetre) but I seriously doubt if the

results would be noticed when viewing a print. ( mine are all at 16X20 inch) I would like one of the newer CFs, due to the huge weight

difference however.

I have my 500c, bought new in 1968. I have new A12 magazines, but much prefer the original 500C backs, much better construction. All

lenses focus smoothly and easily--if one should not, it is more likely due to UNDER-usage! Oil thickens when not used constantly. I do

have them serviced every 5 years or so.( I have used Hasselblad Service Centres in Britain, S.Africa, Netherlands, and here in Portugal,

the latter giving phenomenal service. Ie Commercial Foto in Lisbon).

I find the square format a big advantage as I can easily crop in the darkroom later for vertical, horizontal and square images as desired.

I also have the 500CXi model with the brighter viewfinder and OFT flash available. I never experienced focusing problems with the

original 500C viewing glass, but in dim lighting, the D finder Is easier.

Can't go wrong with a 500C , a quality bit of engineering.