Purchased a Hassy 503 CX: Question on Lens comp & shutter

[satya_rodrigo]

<p>I got a Hasselblad 503 CX (1989 model) with a CZ 80mm CF T F2.8 (1989 model with 60 bayonet). :)<br /> Been reading up, but had some questions I wanted to make sure, as I am ordering online and cannot look at things and try them out.<br /> <em><strong>Lens compatability</strong></em><br /> I am looking for a CZ 150mm F4 to use for portraits. I know that the V series can use any lenses with the leaf shutter, but are there any compatibility issues with using a lens that is newer?<br /> For example there is a nice condition 1992 150mm F4 lens - but one description says it works for the 500 series and then later in the details indicates 200 / 2000 focal plane as shutter. <br /> Should I confine looking for lens for the same year as the camera or range 1987-1989? I understand that the newer lenses are easier to focus meaning the ring is easier to grip etc.<br /> <em><strong>Lens choice</strong></em><br /> I have read that the 120mm lens is better for macro and that the 150mm is the best for portraits. Is the 250mm any good? Seen a few on sale. Thats around a 137mm in 35mm i guess. Haven't seen many write about the 250.<br /> <em><strong>Shutter</strong></em><br /> I need a cable release for use on tripod etc. I have read up that some have used mechanical threaded cables for range finder / vintage cameras for Hassy 500 CM models. Is the 503 CX the same standard? So any threaded cable would work?<br>

<br /> Many thanks. (Sorry that the question on 2 things became a few questions.)</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 120/4 Makro is a more versatile lens than the 150/4, and could be used for portraits, if being brutally sharp is no detriment. It will focus down to 1:4 with no attachments, and works very well with Hasselblad extension tubes and bellows. The 150 is considered the classic portrait lens (head and shoulders) for the Hasselblad. It is much smaller and less expensive than the 120 Makro. It focuses just close enough for an head and shoulders portrait, but needs an extension ring (16 mm?) for a facial closeup. The 150 is considered sharper for landscapes, but not by a wide margin. I can't answer about compatibility of the CZ150.</p>

<p>The 250 is a little long for portraits, and not the sharpest lens in the lineup (there is a special version, very expensive, that is exceptionally sharp). It's nearly 7" long, and barely fits in my backpack. I see it as a complement to more commonly used lenses, and relatively inexpensive, but not one I use a lot.</p>

<p>The traditional lenses for a film body starts with 50, 80 and 150 mm lenses. For a cropping digital back, like a CFV16 or CFV50, would be 40, 60 and 120. As noted above, I am comfortable using a 120 Makro in place of the 150, with film or digital.</p>

<p>The 500 bodies I have take a standard ISO threaded cable release. If you use a compendium (bellows) lens shade, the shade gets in the way, but there is a 15 degree elbow adapter which provided clearance (if you can find one).</p>

[satya_rodrigo]

<p>Thank you for the info Edward and your experiences on the 120.<br>

I had ordered a 150/4 that was at a good price close to my camera age before I saw the post! <br>

Someone said that i could try extension tubes- but I hate the hassle of using them. May see how the 150 is and think about the 120. The lens junkie that I am- I may need to get one! sigh, now this will delay my FF lens purchases. </p>

 

[bill_dewberry]

<p>I have the 120 and 150 Cf lenses, I think the 150 is the better portrait lens. Put a 16 extension tube on it, and it really gets good !!</p>