Hasselblad 500 c/m - can't re-attach a12 back

[ralf11womba]

The thing I called a "speed wind tab" is #17 on Fig.3 of the manual; Hassy calls it "Speed-up release"... I am using the paper manual I got with the camera.

 

Well!! Doing the same thing a dozen times (moving the shaft counterclockwise; tripping the shutter; and jiggling the wind knob)... finally got the barn doors to move and the mirror even dropped down.

[ralf11womba]

cycled it 2x; then tried to mount the lens - which went on fine

 

cycled it a few more times and it now seems fine, tho who knows when it will seize up again...

[orsetto]

It could last months, or it could seize again tomorrow. My initial instinct that you might free it up by working the frozen knob and releases happily came true, but its a bad sign that it took so long and that you had to play with the throat key as well.

 

If you're interested in using it again, do so now while its working well enough to give you a good feel whether it still suits you. Should you decide its not so much fun as you remember, sell it or trade it SOON while you can still claim its in the ballpark of "functional".

 

Its been my bitter experience that this sort of Hasselblad malfunction (if not professionally repaired) always comes back for an encore, and the messing around that fixed it the first time fails or things get progressively worse. Hope you have better luck!

[pavel_l.]

If prong on the bottom of the body that sticks out jammed you won't be able to cock shutter (wind it). The one way to un-jam is to push pre-release button (#17 on page 3). This button should not move on working body. If it moves ~1 mm, that means "prong mechanism/link" stuck by bent body or the body shell or dried lubricant. This may be one of the solution of your problem.

[tom_chow]

The thing I called a "speed wind tab" is #17 on Fig.3 of the manual; Hassy calls it "Speed-up release"... I am using the paper manual I got with the camera... <snip>

That is the mirror pre-release, I notice that the 500c manual calls it that, the 500cm manual calls it "Pre-release button". Probably some Swedish-English lost in translation Swenglish.

 

 

cycled it 2x; then tried to mount the lens - which went on fine

 

cycled it a few more times and it now seems fine, tho who knows when it will seize up again...

That is classic dried/resinified/old lube syndrome. The lube has become sticky rather than slippery. Exercising the mechanism does get it going, as it unsticks the lube. Let it sit, and it slowly flows back and sticks. You might also fine that it works better when it's warm. The only proper fix is a disassemble, clean and relube. However, you can still take pictures with it as is by exercising it, loading it with film, and not letting it sit too long between shots. If it sticks again, remove the back, and re-exercise it.

[ralf11womba]

My 500 c/m Hassy manual calls it "Speed-up release" - dunno if you guys track arcane matters like the dates of running changes in manuals (like old Porsche nuts do...) but the C is in blue...

 

Anyway, I will send it back to them after the holidays; Thx for all the help and have a happy holiday!

[andyfalsetta]

As others have said, the problem is in the body. It is a problem related to lack of servicing. Comically, your Hassy is working 100% correctly as designed. By that I mean they jam when not serviced for long periods of time. A 50's Rolex works the same way; go long periods without service and they stop running.

 

A buddy of mine just two weeks ago did exactly what you did. He picked up a 500C that had been sitting and dry fired it. The result was the inability to mount the lens and back and its now on my bench getting a total disassembly and service. Chances are also good that the shutter is not working properly either but you haven't gotten that far yet. Your best bet is to sell the lens, back, and body separately disclosing that you haven't had them serviced. If you were to magically luck into this body clearing itself, the odds are very good it will jam again and representing it as an operational body would be disingenuous.

[ralf11womba]

yes, the odds are very good - I decided to try it just before boxing it up for shipment to Hassy Repair... it jammed again.

[andyfalsetta]

I am not trying to drum up business for your tech or for Hasselblad but another important point Orsetto made was the following:

 

"...others have pieces go out in annoying rotation (fix the lens, a month later the body goes out, fix the body, three months later the back goes out: wash, rinse, repeat until you go bankrupt)."

 

Having the lenses and body serviced at the same time is the biggest step you can take to avoiding future problems. Yes this can be a more expensive proposition but imagine the rotation of failures Orsetto refers to and the frustration that comes with it. (pack up your beloved 80mm and send it off for service - wait. Get it back, start shooting and the body starts getting funky three months later; send it off - wait..." Since most of us who buy used equipment don't really know the last service date on our lenses, bodies and even backs, our beloved 500s are just ticking time bombs. Service and the use of proper lubrication just comes with the territory when you own a very mechanical device.

 

If I have one commercial to make about having your devices serviced by Hasselblad or equivalent, its that over the last few months I have purchased three separate bodies. One to shoot with, one as a parts body and the other (potentially after I service it) as a back up. All three of them had different lubricants on the clock spring that tensions the aux shutters. And only one of them worked freely. The rest of the mechanisms were also a "hodge-podge" of different lubricants. We need to be careful who we send our equipment to.

[ralf11womba]

Despite requiring separate forms to be filled out for body and lens, Hassel sent back a single quote which is incomprehensible. There are 6 or 7 line items on their quote. The total of the 3 line items with charges on them is $750. It isn't clear if that is just for the lens or for both. I sent them an Email in attempt to get an answer from them.

[orsetto]

The fee quoted sounds like the total for body + lens (and perhaps also the magazine if you sent them that as well). Average cost of a body overhaul (including new parts) is about $275, overhauling a lens as old as the 60mm f/5.6 Distagon can easily hit $400 or more, film magazine repairs generally run $80-$125. So, $750 is within range of what most independent factory-trained techs would charge for this work.

 

I did warn you repairs on such an old kit would nearly exceed the intrinsic value. If you pay for the repairs, hold on to the service receipt from Hasselblad, as it adds resale value to the items should you decide later you'd rather sell them than keep them. You could probably get around $600 for a serviced 60mm f/5.6, and perhaps $250 for the 500c body (assuming both are in clean cosmetic condition).

 

If it were me, I'd thank Hasselblad for the quote, decline the repairs, and sell the items off as defective for parts/repair. The dead slow, ergonomically terrible 60mm f/5.6 is a joke for anything but landscapes in Arizona at high noon, and the fixed dark screen in the 500c is a chore to use with any lens. Considering how low second hand prices have dropped in the past decade, the minimum comfortable Hasselblad to have today is a 500cm with the standard dim cross screen replaced by the optional microprism bubble screen, and f/4 or f/2.8 lenses. The only sensible f/5.6 lens is the 250mm Sonnar tele on a tripod.

Edited January 9, 2019 by orsetto

[orsetto]

Sorry, I keep forgetting the body in question is a 500cm, not the older fixed-screen 500c. I would consider having Hasselblad repair the 500cm + A12, as those are still viable to use in 2019. The 60mm f/5.6 Distagon isn't: the dim viewing/focusing issue is horrendous. Buying a 50mm f/4, 60mm f/4, or 80mm f/2.8 would be a better "user" investment than repairing a 60mm f/5.6.

[ralf11womba]

I think that is what I'll do.

 

Now, I was thinking of buying a newer 2.8 or f4 lens, but how do I know it will be in good shape, and not require a service 2 weeks from when I buy it?

[ralf11womba]

Okay, they explained their coded quote...

 

$300 for the body

$300 for the lens

$150 for the A12 magazine

 

I will get the 500cm body fixed, but not the lens. I am unsure about the A12 film magazine. Ideas?

[Vincent Peri]

... I am unsure about the A12 film magazine. Ideas?

 

I don't know. I found a "mint" A12 on ebay. Later in the description they say it was lightly used:

 

Hasselblad A12 Film Back - with box - MINT | eBay

[ben_hutcherson]

A12 magazines have gotten pricey, even for the oldest chrome ones. If you get a relatively new one with a dark slide holder, you might be at well over $300.

 

Any time I buy a used magazine(my last two purchases have been A24s and a "12" magazine, but the same principle applies) I replace the light seals out of habit before I even chance film in it. It's a pain in the rear the first time you do it, but easy with a bit of practice. Still, though, proper seals are ~$15 IIRC for a kit on Ebay. I recall David Odess having a note on his site about how he virtually always replaces the dark slide, as most he gets sent have some sort of issue that make them questionable. I looked at and passed on an A24 in the local camera store that was missing its darkslide, because I seem to recall even a good used one running $20-30.

 

That's not to mention that I'm never going to trust a magazine until I've run some film through it to check the frame spacing...on 12s/A12s that's usually expired Delta 100 or some other film that I don't really care about and that I have probably 50¢ a roll in, plus the cost of chemistry(which isn't much)...I do an initial check on A24s the same way, but also want to run 220 through them which for me means a roll of expired negative film and $6 to process it(I value my film like TXP-320 too much to try it in an unknown back).

 

My point in all of that is that I wouldn't lose too much sleep over $150 to service a magazine, especially given how much another A12 will cost you and also the cost of one that DOES NOT work correctly.

[orsetto]

The A12 is a tricky proposition. Its true prices of nice second-hand backs have skyrocketed obscenely in the past two years, but its also true that the Hasselblad gear price rollercoaster has a nasty tendency to turn on a dime when you least expect. The current A12 back prices are absurd- seriously absurd compared to their historical trend since 2009 and that of other more stable Hasselblad pieces (bodies, finders, lenses). I would hate to pay $275 for a back on eBay today, only to have them crater back down to $125 tomorrow. The market is fickle, and Hasselblad in general is moderately to severely overpriced right now vs other MF options.

 

That said, it depends on the overall condition of your specific A12 and whether you honestly think you'll make a go of shooting with the system again (after having neglected it for many years). If the back you sent to Hasselblad is clean (no chips or pitting in chrome, crank intact, mounting plate ridges not worn down too much), then spend $150 to have it overhauled. That fee is a bit on the high side, but a pedigree from genuine Hasselblad repair center is worth it. Presumably that high rate includes replacing any critically worn exterior parts (crank, mounting plate).

 

For future reference, for a spare back consider picking up a nice A24. These are routinely available for $50- $80 on eBay from reputable sellers. You can use 120 film in the A24: it just needs slightly different arrow-lineup when loading, and frame spacing will be a bit peculiar (esp the final 12th frame). And of course you need to remember to wind off the film and reload after the twelfth exposure (the counter will keep going to 24, so if you forget you'll be shooting blanks). The inconvenience is worth it for many of us, given the huge (near $200) savings vs current A12 pricing.

 

Re the lenses: sadly there are no guarantees of getting one that won't need repair suddenly (unless you pay a huge premium to buy one recently overhauled with a warranty from the tech). The lens mechanism is the Achilles Heel of the Hassy system, one that bites hard on unsuspecting casual users who don't realize Hasselblads need regular (and expensive) maintenance. Its never been clear why the hell Mamiya, Bronica and other Japanese lens shutters can go 30 years without major repairs, but a Hasselblad lens can't seem to go five years without vomiting all over itself. Its really REALLY annoying and ghastly expensive unless you're committed heart and soul to the "Zeiss look".

 

You can up your chances of getting a lens that will go the distance by shopping carefully. Above all, avoid the older all-metal silver or black "C" lenses like the plague. I learned that the hard way: they are beautiful to look at and the build quality is unsurpassed, but their Compur shutters are a money pit. Forget sentiment and beauty: opt for the uglier newer CF, CFi, CFe or CB lenses and you'll have far fewer problems. Unfortunately everybody else knows this too, so prices are correspondingly higher.

 

The CF 80mm f/2.8 Planar holds its value extremely well, so historically has been difficult to snag for much under $650 in good working condition from sellers like KEH. Individual eBay sellers sometimes let them go cheaper, but with KEH you get a no-questions-asked 30-day return/exchange/refund policy. The CB version is priced similarly or slightly higher, and offers much nicer focus feel and even more durable shutter. Back in the day it was sneered at for having one less element than the CF, but in recent years has been re-appraised as a damned fine lens in its own right (a hair less sharp in the corners but sharper in the center compared to the CF).

 

Going in another direction, recent prices on the modern 60mm f/3.5 Distagon CF are more stable and affordable than the 80mm Planar CF. If you like the slightly wide perspective of your ancient 60mm f/5.6, the newer lens offers much brighter max aperture, more reliable shutter, and often sells for $500 or so if you stalk eBay listings for a couple weeks. It is also available as a slightly nicer CB or CFi, but those versions cost hundreds more than the CF while having the exact same optics.

Edited January 10, 2019 by orsetto

[orsetto]

FWIW, at one (insane) point back in 2011, I owned the Hassy lenses below. Of these, all the "C" lenses broke down within two years of purchase. Only two of the CF went wonky some years later, and none of the CB or CFe. Today I'm down to a manageable nine lenses, the first ones to go were the trouble-prone "C" beauties (lovely to look at, delightful to hold, but wallet-busting repair pigs).

[ben_hutcherson]

I know I'm biding my time and probably playing with fire, but I've had my Hassy kit a year and all four of my lenses continue to work fine, albeit with dead slow speeds on the 80mm(that way when I got it) and focusing that takes a herculean effort on the 50mm and 80mm.

 

Mine are chrome, pre-T* lenses. Most have legible date codes, and came together in an outfit from the same original owner. The body is from 1960, the "12" back is form 1961, and the 80mm is from 1961. One lens is missing the date code, but the newest is dated 1964, and I think I'm missing a code for '62 or '63 in the sequence-I'm guessing the original owner bought one lens after his initial purchase of the basic kit. BTW, as all have the original owners SSN electro-penned into them(and the first two digits are 40, which means he was born in Central KY or somewhere in this general area) I don't think I'm stretching too much on the provenance of it.

 

I know I'd be better served by newer lenses, but haven't wanted to spend the money on black lenses...I know chrome T* would be a SLIGHT IQ upgrade, but I doubt I'd see it and I'd still have the issue of flaky Pronto-Compur shutters...since the Distagon and Planar are my most used lenses, I'm thinking I'd probably be best served by upgrading them to CBs and hopefully my Sonnars(150mm and 250mm) will continue working.

[orsetto]

Those are some vintage lenses ya got there! IIRC, the 1961 80mm Planar was still using the original 6-element optical formula (instead of the more common later 7-element). The formula changed somewhere around serial number 2822xxxx. I could never detect a difference in performance, at least in the BW prints I've seen (never found anything in color I could verify as shot with the older 6-element).

 

There doesn't seem to be any middle ground of experience with the older "C" lenses. Either they just keep going like the energizer bunny, or they break down at the worst times. The most important factor appears to be "use it or lose it" - if they sit, they die. Also, earlier versions like yours (pre-1965) and the final run (1975-1979) seem to go longer intervals between service sessions than mid-period (1966-1974) examples.

 

The big "gotcha" with the C lenses isn't so much the shutter as the diaphragm mechanism. Any camera repair tech over the age of 60 can repair the typical dead slow speed issue. Things get dicier when the aperture starts deciding it will take its own sweet time stopping down, thank you, and the exposure you set of f/11 or f/16 actually goes off somewhere around f/5.6 as the diaphragm is still s-l-o-w-l-y stopping down. This is a pain, and very expensive, to repair. I've had it happen with the occasional CF lens, too, but those seemed to respond well to exercise: pop it on the motorized 500ELX, fire away for a couple days until it sorts itself, then it doesn't return (cross fingers, anyway- three years good and counting).

 

If you ever decide you need the T* multicoating, skip the silver CT* lenses and head straight for the black (or better yet CF). The silver T* used to be fairly pedestrian but became coveted collectibles in the Asian market over the past 20 years (fetching an unwarranted premium price). The only "C" lenses that benefit dramatically from T* are the 40mm & 50mm f/4 Distagons, due to their complex multi-element retrofocus optics. (I owned a beautiful mint copy of the 40mm for a hot minute a couple years ago: damned thing retailed for more than a new Buick back in 1975. Phenomenal piece of glass for the era, but HUGE, clumsy, extremely front heavy, and the focus drag makes the the horrible 80mm focus ring feel lighter than air.) The 80mm, 150mm and 250mm Cs do fine without T* as long as you use the matching hood.

Edited January 10, 2019 by orsetto

[andyfalsetta]

[quote="ben_hutcherson, post: 5724720, member: 2061838" and focusing that takes a herculean effort on the 50mm and 80mm.

 

 

One of those fast focus levers can give you nice mechanical advantage over tight lens helicoids. Cheaper than a service bill for sure if you can live withan odd appendage on your lens.

[ralf11womba]

I don't know. I found a "mint" A12 on ebay. Later in the description they say it was lightly used:

 

Hasselblad A12 Film Back - with box - MINT | eBay

 

But wouldn't the lubricant be dried out whether it was new in box or not?

[ben_hutcherson]

But wouldn't the lubricant be dried out whether it was new in box or not?

 

Speaking for myself, I'd tend to trust a "working, pulled from service, recently used" back more so than a 20+ year old new in box back.

 

Either one would get a thorough check-out, and both would be suspect until they'd been serviced. The only thing I'd place a BIG premium on is a recently serviced back with a receipt from either Hasselblad or one of the well-known aftermarket repairmen.

[ben_hutcherson]

Those are some vintage lenses ya got there! IIRC, the 1961 80mm Planar was still using the original 6-element optical formula (instead of the more common later 7-element). The formula changed somewhere around serial number 2822xxxx. I could never detect a difference in performance, at least in the BW prints I've seen (never found anything in color I could verify as shot with the older 6-element).

 

This thread probably isn't the place for it, but I'm happy to scan and share some color photos taken with mine if you're interested in seeing.

 

BTW, responding to @andyfalsetta , I have two of the quick focusing handles(two different sizes) and at one point had one permanently parked on my 80mm. Unfortunately, I ditched it this past Easter as I was also using a flash(Metz 60CT4) on the camera that day and kept having issues with the focus handle and PC cord. I know Paramount will sell you a cord with a custom tip for this combination, but the price can be eye-popping on it.

[orsetto]

Like everything else Hasselblad, figuring out the various back purchase risks can be headache-inducing.

 

Mint-in-box isn't as sketchy an idea with the backs as it is with bodies/lenses. The backs aren't quite as critically dependent on lube as the bodies/lenses; its preferable to have recent, fully supple lube but they'll often run reasonably well even with old lube. The backs have three common failure points: dark slide seal, which is DIY fixable, the nylon stop that works with the body gearing to measure out film, and overall framing consistency which drifts over time as the total mechanism is worn down or ages.

 

Bodies that sit unused can seize, lenses that sit unused develop stubborn shutter/diaphragm issues. But "minty" backs that sit unused are actually a good bet, because the less wear/use they've had the longer they'll last once YOU start using them. Chances are 50/50 they'll work great: I've picked up several mint-in-box, clearly never-used A24 backs that have served me well for years with no service. Its fairly easy to tell whether a "mint" back needs a lube job or not: if the camera winds smoothly without noticeable effort the back is likely fine, if it winds with noticeable or unusual resistance or drag it needs a service. Film testing would give the definitive answer.

 

Of course, nothing is ever that simple with Hasselblad. Like the bodies, they made rolling unannounced internal modifications to the A12 & A24 over the years. There are at least four visually distinct generations of A backs, with several hidden versions between. Some of these internal updates were for the better, others weren't, and they aren't in linear sequence: it went one step forward, two steps back sometimes. Some back variations had corners cut in construction, others were beefed up, but its hard to nail down by date other than the earliest A12/A24 were the overall best made (but usually require a service to work their smoothest). This is only relevant if the back has never been serviced: Hasselblad-direct or factory-trained techs will usually rebuild any generation back into baseline optimum design brief, per the official service bulletins.

Edited January 10, 2019 by orsetto