Wide angle lens for 500c/m

[jim_coyote]

<p>I currently have a 150CF that I use for portraits, but I would like to so some landscapes and architecture too, so I'm looking for a wide angle lens. The two that I'm looking at are the 50 CF FLE and the 60 CF. Which one is better, and why? <br>

Is one noticeably sharper, or have better contrast than the other? Is one a generally more useful focal length? I've looked at the MTF charts, and the 50 seems to outperform the 60, but they are also comparing f/4 to f/3.5. <br>

Thank you, </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The CF60 is very sharp, probably better than the CF50. However it is not particularly wide. I use the 60 a lot, but mainly as a "normal" lens for a cropping digital back (CFV16). For general use, the CF50 FLE would be my recommendation (I have both). The CF60 is an excellent choice for weddings and events.</p>

<p>The CF50 FLE is much sharper in the corners than the older, C50 lens, and uses a different formula. There is a non-FLE CF50 which uses the older formula as well. The CFi50 connects the floating group to the focusing ring, rather than the separate ring of the FLE. It is also optimized for digital, at the expense of corner sharpness.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It depends whether in 35mm terms you are a 35mm or 28mm man (60 vs 50). Not exactly equivalent, but near enough. The 60mm is a better "normal" lens whereas 50mm is a definite wide angle. Paired with a 150 you may find 50mm too wide. 50mm might pair better with a 100mm.</p>

[iangillett]

<p>Probably the most common lens set-up with a Hasselblad 500 series is the 50mm/ 80mm/ 150mm combination - which I have. I also have a 903SWC so that gives me a super wide option as well. Like Edward, I have a CFV16 digital back which means the 50mm lens gives me the equivalent angle of view as the 80mm full frame (I realise the 'crop factor' means it is more of a 75mm but Hasselblad don't make one of those). I did have a 100mm but traded that in to help fund an 8x10 Ebony. I also considered getting a 60mm - after reading many threads here on photo.net - but never managed to find one at the right price.<br>

I would suggest that you go for the 50mm lens as this will give you the wider option which means you can always crop if you need to - it's harder to take that step back when you are up against a wall or edge of a ridge. You are also more likely to find a reasonably priced 50mm lens as there are lots of them out there. All three of my lenses are of the latest type as I prefer the rubberised focussing grip and the unlinked shutter/ aperture rings - on earlier lenses you set the EV which means the shutter/ aperture move in combination and you have to press a button on the lens to disconnect the link. The FLE has floating elements and you need to select on of four ranges for critical focus; this is very easy to do.<br>

Although Robin is correct in giving his 35mm equivalents, the square format of the Hasselblad means that you do can have a lot more in your composition than the 2:3 ratio of a 35mm frame and so the composition can seem wider.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>I would go wide. IOW the 50 over the 60.<br>

Because when your back is litterally against the wall, you can't back up any further to get more coverage.<br>

And if you have an 80, IMHO the 60 is too close to the 80.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em>It depends whether in 35mm terms you are a 35mm or 28mm man (60 vs 50).</em><br /> <em><br /></em>The 60 is closer to a 40mm lens, and the 50 is close to a 35mm lens (on 35mm format)</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>The 60 is closer to a 40mm lens, and the 50 is close to a 35mm lens (on 35mm format)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...if you assume that printing crops the negative from 6x6 to 645 or similar rectangular format.</p>

<p>But if you retain the 6x6 square format, then Robin's equivalents are more accurate: a 60 mm on 6x6 is like a 35 mm lens on 35mm, a 50 mm on 6x6 is like a 28 mm lens on 35mm.</p>